Motivation with respect to Performance Appraisal

Prateek Bhatnagar

Roll No. R740210033

Sap Id.500011835

Ph : 07895179160
Email-id : prateekbhatnagar28@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Performance Appraisal is  the process of evaluating the performance of employees, sharing that
information with them and searching for ways to improve their performance .

The purpose of this study is to examine the statement “To what extent do performance appraisals
motivate individuals in the workplace”. The findings will be attained from the prominent theories in
motivation. The study will try to find which of the theories from Mayo, Hertzberg and Taylor are evident
from the findings. 

The reason that research is being conducted is because motivation is a broad subject and can be
interpreted into many different functions. Also, it plays a pivotal role within different departments of
organizations and it is attributed to the success of an organization. Motivation is seen as a very important
aspect of an organization as it contributes to how well it performs. This ultimately has an effect on 
the organizations corporate objectives. This includes attainment of higher market share and profit
maximization as a result of an individual’s performance.

Processes that are used to motivate employees have an effect on their willingness to stay with the 
organization. Appraisals are prevalent in many companies and are seen as a crucial ingredient in
motivating employees; therefore, it increases the importance of carrying out this study. Performance
appraisals provide employees with recognition for their work efforts. The appraisal system provides the
supervisor with an opportunity to indicate to employees that the organization is interested in their
performance and development. This recognition can have a positive motivational influence on the
individual's sense of worth, commitment and belonging. 

INTRODUCTION 

A performance appraisal is the process of assessing workers performance in comparison to certain

predetermined organizational standards. Appraisals not only help employees understand how they are 
doing but they also help the worker's supervisor along with the organization as a whole. 
Performance appraisal is one way of giving employees feedback about their performance at work.
According to ACAS (1997) appraisals regularly record an assessment of an employee’s performance,
potential and development needs. 
Performance appraisal a formal system of measuring,evaluating,and influencing an employee’s job-
related attributes, behaviours and outcomes. In some organisation’s appraisal results may be used to
determine relative rewards in the firm -- who should get merit pay increases, bonuses, or promotions.
Similarly, appraisal results can be used to identify the poorer performers who may require some form of 
counselling, demotion, dismissal or decreases in pay.Interestingly, performance appraisal is a very
controversial managerial issue. Some researchers have expressed doubts about the validity and reliability
of the process. On the other hand, there are advocates of performance appraisal who claim that it may
well be the most critical of all Performance Appraisal and Motivation. 

Motivational research conducted by many theorists including Elton Mayo Frederick Taylor, who have
recognized the power of recognition as an incentive (Maslow and the Expectancy Theory of Motivation). 

Performance appraisals provide employees with recognition for their work efforts. The appraisal system
provides the supervisor with an opportunity to indicate to employees that the organization is interested in
their performance and development. This recognition can have a positive motivational influence on the
individual's sense of worth, commitment and belonging. 

There have been many theories on the aspect of motivation. Many contemporary authors have defined
the concept of motivation. Krietner (1995) defined motivation as a psychological process that gives 
behaviour purpose and direction.

Motivation is seen as a very important aspect of an organisation as it contributes to how well it performs.
This ultimately has an effect on the organisations corporate objectives. This includes attainment of 
higher market share and profit maximisation as a result of an individual’s performance. Processes that are
used to motivate employees have an effect on their willingness to stay with the organisation. Appraisals
are prevalent in many companies and are seen as a crucial ingredient in motivating employees; therefore
it increases the importance of carrying out this study. 

The purpose of this study is to examine the statement “To what extent do performance appraisals
motivate individuals in the workplace”. The findings will be attained from the prominent theories in
motivation. The study will try to find which of the theories from Mayo, Hertzberg and Taylor are evident
from the findings. 

The reason that research is being conducted is because motivation and the fact that it is a broad subject
and can be interpreted into many different functions. Also it plays a pivotal role within
different departments of organisations and it is attributed to the success of an organisation.

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Theories of motivation 

In general, motivation theorists focus their work on the "whys" of human behaviour (Weiner, 1992).
Cognitive theorists of motivation propose a clear relation between beliefs, attitudes, and values as 
mediators of task engagement (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, in press). That is, the extent to which one
engages in a task depends upon beliefs about one's own competence or self-efficacy, the extent to which
one values a given task, and whether that value is intrinsic or extrinsic in origin (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Motivation researchers see these individual beliefs, values, and goals for achievement as critical
determinants of achievement-related behavior (Weiner, 1992; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). These constructs
can be conceptualised as a series of questions an individual asks themselves with respect to a 
given activity or task (Wigfield, 1997), including 

q. Can I succeed? 

q. Do I want to succeed and why? and 

q. What do I need to do to succeed? 

Researchers in this area have developed a number of motivational constructs to describe how they relate
to various achievement behaviors. These include perceptions of ability and self-efficacy, task values,
achievement goals, control beliefs, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and achievement attributions (Rigby,
Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). 

Many theorists on practical aspects of motivation in the workplace have conducted motivational research.
Research that has been undertaken in this field notably by Douglas McGregor [theory y], 
Frederick Herzberg [two factor motivation hygiene theory,] Abraham Maslow [theory z, hierarchy of
needs] Elton Mayo [Hawthorne Experiments] Chris Argyris Rensis Likert and David McCelland 
[achievement motivation] But within this Literature review the prominence and analysis will be
concentrated solely on the three theorists:- 

- Elton Mayo (Hawthorne Experiments) 

- Douglas McGregor (theory Y) 

- Abraham Maslow ( hierarchy of needs) 

- Frederick Herzberg (two factor motivation hygiene theory) 

The most important issue that will be evaluated while analysing the affects of the above theorist and their
views will be their significance to the overall selected research topic in addition to their individual failings
in their theory’s and research. 

Introduction to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Maslow’s Hierarchy Needs 

Maslow's theory consisted of two parts: 

q The classification of human needs, and 

q Consideration of how the classes are related to each other 

Maslow summarized the hierarchies of needs relevant to the chosen 

research topic as follows: 

- A person starts at the bottom of the hierarchy (pyramid) and will 

initially seek to satisfy basic needs (e.g. food, shelter) 
- Once these physiological needs have been satisfied, they are no 
longer a motivator. The individual moves up to the next level 

- Esteem needs are about being given recognition for a job well done. 
They reflect the fact that many people seek the esteem and respect of 
others. A promotion at work might achieve this. 

Problems with the Maslow’s Model 

The problem with the above study is although Maslow's model has great potential appeal in the business
world. The message is barely clear if management can find out which level each employee has reached,
then they can decide on suitable rewards so therefore only then can they increase motivation.. 

There are several problems with the Maslow model when a real-life working practice is considered: 

- Individual behaviour seems to respond to several needs - not just one 

- The same need (e.g. the need to interact socially at work) may cause quite different behaviour in
different individuals 

- There is a problem in deciding when a level has actually been "satisfied" 

- The model ignores the often-observed behaviour of individuals who tolerate low-pay for the promise
of future benefits 

- There is little empirical evidence to support the model. 

Therefore linking this to the research proposal question in Maslow’s analysis appraisal will come below
the fourth level of the hierarchy this can be criticized, as a number of people may believe without 
appraisal in a workplace they may not be with the organization for a long period of time. 

MOTIVATOR FACTORS 

Motivator factors are based on an individual's need for personal growth. When they exist, motivator
factors actively create job satisfaction. If they are effective, then they can motivate an individual to
achieve above-average performance and effort. Motivator factors include status, opportunity for
advancement, gaining recognition, responsibility, challenging/stimulating work, sense of 
personal achievement & personal growth in a job. 

There are several similarities between Herzberg's and Maslow's models. They both suggest that needs
have to be satisfied for the employee to be motivated. However, Herzberg argues that only the higher
levels of the Maslow Hierarchy (e.g. self-actualization, esteem needs) act as a motivator. The remaining
needs can only cause dissatisfaction if not addressed. 
MCGREGOR’S THEORY X AND THEORY Y 

McGregor developed two theories of human behaviour at work: Theory and X and Theory Y. He did not
imply that workers would be one type or the other. Rather, he saw the two theories as two extremes - with
a  whole spectrum of possible behaviors in between. 

Theory X workers could be described as follows: 

- Individuals who dislike work and avoid it where possible 

- Individuals who lack ambition, dislike responsibility and prefer to 

be led 

- Individuals who desire security 

The management implications for Theory X workers were that, to achieve organisational objectives, a
business would need to impose a management system of coercion, control and punishment. 

Theory Y workers were characterised by McGregor as: 

The management implications for Theory X workers are that, to achieve organisational objectives,
rewards of varying kinds are likely to be the most popular motivator. The challenge for management with
Theory Y workers is to create a working environment (or culture) where workers 
can show and develop their creativity.

 
How the Study was conducted?

METHODOLOGY 

The proposed research will be conducted on a market research company called National Opinion Poll
(N.O.P), which is based in Luton. This company was chosen as performance appraisals are very
prevailing in this business and are undertaken a number of times each year. 

In this study the effects of appraisals within the organisation N.O.P will be investigated. The most
important factor that will be looked into while analysing the affects of appraisals will be if they have a 
considerable impact on motivation with regards to the employees within N.O.P. Furthermore, the views of
employees of N.O.P will be given as to what their views and feelings are on performance appraisals. 

POPULATION AND SAMPLE 

I have chosen the complete workforce of my organisation as the population, which consists of 750
employees together with, management, supervisors, and team leaders across three different shift-
patterns (9am-1pm, 1pm-5pm, 5pm-9pm). A record of all employees on different 
shift patterns will be attained from the human resource branch by request. The recommended sample
size is 254 with a 95 percent level of certainty. This leaves a margin of error of 5 percent. A reasonable 
response rate for interviews (kervin, 1992) theses responses rates will be taken into consideration when
carrying out the research. The sampling techniques that will be as a rule suitable in this 
organisation are systematic and stratified random sampling. The workforce will be divided into two
separate strata. One stratum being management consisting of managers, supervisors and team leaders,
the other stratum consisting of the telesales staff. After carrying out the calculation it was found that 1 in
every 3 cases needs to be selected from the sampling frame to represent the telesales staff. 

The sampling fraction formula that was used to attain the fraction for 
telesales staff sample selection is 322/750=1/3 

RESEARCH QUESTION 

To answer the research question and meet the objectives a multi-method 

approach will be taken. 

The first method that will be used to collect data is through the use of semi-structured interviews. The
interviews will be conducted on a one-to-one basis and voice recorded. Consequently the data will be 
used to understand the relationships between the variables. Interviews will be conducted with the staff in
various departments to fully understand their experiences and views on performance appraisals as a 
motivator; however, interview method will take more time in gathering information. Furthermore, some
information gathered from interviews might be bias. But the interview method was chosen because it
allows flexibility to get full range and in-depth information from the participants. Response rate very high
use of panel is easy. The interviews will be carried out randomly on a few people from each 
department. This may give an overview on the extent to which appraisals motivate and will exemplify the
relationship between appraisals and motivation whilst moving along the hierarchy. 

The second method that will be used will be in the form of questionnaires, which will be handed out, this
method was chosen as questionnaires are a less expensive way to reach more people, data  analysis can
begin right away.. 

- Do performance appraisals motivate in the workplace? 

- To what extent do performance appraisals motivate the workforce? 

- Which other factors other than performance appraisals affect 

motivation of the workforce? 

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The results of the first two questions were analyzed in a similar fashion. The influence ratings for each
factor were totaled and averaged for each group-researcher and managers-separately. Each factor was
assigned a rank, with a rank of 1 going to the factor with the highest average. Then a statistical test was
performed to test the conclusions drawn by observation of the data. Spearman's rank coefficient, p, was
calculated to get an idea of how well the researchers' and managers' rankings correlated. Spearman's rank
coefficient is a measure of correlation between two sets of ranked data, and it ranges between 0 and 1 for positive
correlations. A coefficient of 1 denotes perfect correlation, or identically ranked sets of data.

RESULTS:
 The results show that dissatisfiers can erect barriers to motivation and good performance even if
motivators are well in hand. It would behoove management to make a greater effort to understand
what the specific dissatisfiers for the researchers are. This, then, would aid both management
and the researchers in planning and prioritizing efforts.
 Feelings about job, whether they are happy and motivated or dissatisfied with their job. The
researchers' and managers' responses were categorized as either "dissatisfied," "neutral," or
"motivated
 Almost 37% of the respondents' answers were categorized as either neutral or dissatisfied, which
seems inconsistent with both the excellent record of accomplishment by this FFRDC and its intent
to continue and improve as a world-class leader in its core competencies. Perhaps the problems
and differences in emphasis associated with the second question are contributing factors here.
Further, it appears that more researchers than managers are dissatisfied, and this should be of
concern. A one sided 2-by-2 contingency chart analysis of a subset of the data was performed,
eliminating the neutral responses, to determine if the probability of a greater proportion of
researchers being dissatisfied could be detected
 So, for both groups, there is fairly good agreement between the study results and Herzberg's
theory. The agreement would have been even better if two factors-company policy and
administration and interpersonal relations-were not misplaced by several ranks from Herzberg's
order. These differences in ranking might be due to the R&D environment in general, or they may
be due to the circumstances of this particular FFRDC. The dead-last ranking of company policy
and administration by both researchers and managers, for instance, might relate to the attitudes
and tendencies of those who chose the R&D environment. Similarly, the fact that interpersonal
relations, considered a hygiene factor by Herzberg, ranked right up with the motivators might also
be an artifact peculiar to R&D. Further research would be necessary to clarify the situation for
each factor
 In order to prevent any biasing of the results, study participants received no orientation about
Herzberg's theory or his factors prior to or during the study. So it was impressive that the results
of the first two questions matched Herzberg's rankings fairly well. By and large, Herzberg
motivators were motivators for the R&D personnel, and likewise, Herzberg hygiene, or job
satisfaction, factors were job satisfaction factors for the R&D personnel.
 Another issue relates to the third question, in which participants were asked if they felt happy and
motivated or dissatisfied in their jobs. Some written answers used the terms "motivated" or
"dissatisfied," but others were less direct or hard to interpret. Thus, some subjectivity entered into
their classification. Answers such as "neither" or "sometimes one, sometimes the other" were
classified as neutral. In future surveys, this question will be presented on a numerical scale, using
a continuum from dissatisfied to neutral to motivated. This will eliminate subjectivity and will make
the data more amenable to statistical analysis.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
 The application of Herzberg's theory to this R&D environment is generally validated. This
research could be generalized to see if it applies to all R&D environments. Of particular interest
might be the anomaly with regard to two factors-company policy and administration and
interpersonal relations. Further research could determine if this result applies solely to this
particular FFRDC, to government or other highly regulated R&D environments, or to the R&D
environment in general.
 It would be useful to know if the level of dissatisfaction evident from the third question is high,
typical, or low for R&D environments in general. Further research could answer this question as
well as profile specific R&D environments. This knowledge would aid in determining the urgency
and importance that should be placed on following up on the specific results for this FFRDC.
 The study FFRDC's management should investigate the difference between their rankings of
dissatisfiers and those of the researchers so that management can plan and prioritize their efforts
at amelioration. More specific recommendations for the FFRDC involve a two-pronged effort, with
both parts being equally important.
 The first is a focused effort to deal with the two most aggravating hygiene factors, infrastructure
(working conditions) and company policy and administration. The reason for addressing these
hygiene factors with high priority is that, as stated before, they can act as barriers to motivated
performance even if there isn't a problem with the motivation factors.
 To address the infrastructure item, a management/researcher team is recommended to identify,
in Pareto fashion, the most important, aggravating, and impacting problems. The rest of the effort
involves, in this particular government arena, articulation of the problem and education of both
site customers and the DOE customer about the need to invest in the infrastructure. It will be
necessary to frame the argument and proposals not only in terms of an intangible like motivating
the scientists, but also in the more concrete terms of actual impact on site support, mission, and
future. The milieu of this FFRDC is such that high-level decisions are made by people with
primarily engineering, operating, and maintenance backgrounds. Thus, while it is important to
attempt to describe what is necessary to operate a leading R&D center, it is also important to
present the issues in the language of decision makers, e.g., schedule and dollars. It is also
important that this effort receive continuing attention and follow-up and not just be a complaint du
jour
 Company policy and administration also needs a small manager/researcher onetime team effort.
The situation is complicated by several factors in this environment. One is that this FFRDC does
work for different customers who are required to meet various national codes, regulations, and
standards. Another is that requirements are imposed internally, externally by operating
customers, and by the DOE. Another set of administrative, financial, and human resources
policies is imposed by the company. Sometimes the details of these requirements are formulated
by the company, but in response to generic DOE requirements, and some are just the company's
idea of good business practice.
 It also means the right balance between work in direct support of plant activities and interesting
work available from other government agencies that not only keeps the scientists challenged but
enhances the core competencies needed to support the site. This balance ensures, then, that
quality researchers are on staff and available when the plant needs them.

CONCLUSION
Recognition is, of course, tied up with the other two motivators. It means ensuring that there is an
active intellectual property program and that researchers have ample opportunity and funds to
travel to conferences so that they can present papers, network with their peers, and otherwise get
recognized for their achievements. Again, funding priorities are involved.Three common threads
among the efforts to minimize dissatisfiers and enhance motivators are management
endorsement and support, teamwork, and follow-through.In general, this study should be
considered a first step for the FFRDC management. For each factor, there are specific situations,
facts, programs, etc. Even where it appears that management and researchers agree, evaluating
the specifics could prevent overlooking an incipient problem or misunderstanding. Looking at the
specifics is especially important in evaluating the areas of disagreement.

REFERENCES

 Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work,
John Wiley & Sons (1959).
 Herzberg, Frederick, Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing (1966).
 Wikipedia.com
 Google.com