chapter 4: empirical research 4.1 research approach

CHAPTER 4: Empirical Research

4.1 RESEARCH APPROACH In order to understand some of the issues regarding the perception of

employees on the effective use of the current appraisal system, an exploratory

research was conducted. Zikmund (2003:110) defines an exploratory research as an initial research conducted to clarify and define the nature of

the problem. Zikmund (2003:111) further states that an exploratory research

is used as a diagnostic tool to point out issues of concern or generate a

possible explanation for some patterns.

4.2 SAMPLING METHOD AND DESIGN Sampling is defined by Zikmund (2003:369) as a process of using a small

number of items or parts of a larger population to make conclusions about the

whole population. The target population for this study is those employees

who have been with the bank for at least two years from the two divisions,

being Retail Credit, Group IT.

Zikmund (2003:373) defined the sampling frame as a list of elements from

which a sample may be drawn. A personnel list was used as a sampling

frame for this study. The personnel list containing Surname, Name, Level,

Region and Start Date (See Annexure A) was supplied to the researcher by

human resources. This study had to ensure that there was adequate

representation of managerial and non managerial levels of employees from

both divisions. Each member of the groups, provided they satisfied the

definition of the target population as explained in the paragraph above, had an

equal chance of being selected. According to Zikmund (2003:379), a

probability sampling is a sampling technique in which every member of the

target population has a known non-zero probability of selection.

77

Probability sampling was therefore applied for the purposes of this study, with

the stratus being the division (retail credit and Group IT) and position level

(managers and non-managers) who are equal on some characteristics (at

least two years with the bank).

Sample Division Total employees

(#) Employees, 2yrs+ with the bank (#)

Sample (#)

Responses

Retail Credit 1,348 800 100 46

Group IT(Other*) 878 551 100 18

TOTAL RESPONSES 64

RESPONSES WITH NO SUBORDINATES 44

RESPONSES WITH SUBORDINATES 20

A sample size of 64 cases was used for this study.

4.3 RESPONSE RATE Response rate is defined by Zikmund (2003:215) as the number of

questionnaires returned or completed, divided by the total number of eligible

people who were contacted or asked to participate in the study.

For the purposes of this study, Human Resources consultants from each

division were asked to brief the selected participants prior to receipt of the

questionnaires. Participants were asked to indicate their willingness to

participate prior to the questionnaire being sent to them electronically by

email.

The researcher scheduled sessions with selected participants so as to

complete the questionnaires under supervision. 22 of the completed

questionnaires were completed under the researcher’s supervision and the

other 42 questionnaires were delivered to the researcher or electronically

completed and emailed to the researcher.

The table below illustrates the response rate calculated as:

78

Response Rate = Completed questionnaires / Selected participants. Division Selected

participants Withdrawn questionnaires**

Returned/Completed questionnaires

Response Rate

Retail Credit 100 12 46 46%

Group IT(Other*) 100 37 18 18%

TOTAL 200 49 64 32%

Note:

*: Participants were selected from the Group IT personnel list, but they marked Other* on the questionnaire.

**: Participants were not willing to participate.

4.4 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

A questionnaire in Appendix B was designed to establish the perception of

employees on the effective use of the performance appraisal system in the

bank. This questionnaire was the source of the primary data for this study.

Most questions in the questionnaire had fixed alternative questions. Zikmund

(2003:332) describes fixed alternative questions as questions where the

respondent is given limited alternative responses and asked to choose the

one closest to his or her viewpoint. Over and above the fixed alternatives,

some questions had an option for open ended questions. Open ended

questions are questions that ask the respondent to answer in his or her own

words, Zikmund (2003:331). This option was given to respondents so as to

elaborate on the already selected alternative.

4.5 DATA ANALYSIS

Completed questionnaires were delivered to the University of Johannesburg –

Statistical Consultancy Services (“Statcon”) for data capturing and analysis.

Data analysis was done using SPSS statistical package. Because of the low

sample size and response rate, Statcon advised the researcher to use

descriptive statistics using frequency tables for each question and cross

tabulations of each question by respondent’s current position (i.e. manager

versus non manager). Zikmund (2003:402-403) defines descriptive

79

statistics as statistics used to describe information about a sample or

population and frequency distribution as set of organised data summarising

the number of times a particular value of a variable occurs. Cross tabulations are defined by Zikmund (2003:476) as organising data by groups,

categories, or classes to facilitate comparisons on two or more sets of

variables.

Qualitative responses gathered from open ended questions were manually

analysed and similar responses were grouped together to highlight most

common comments.

80

4.6 RESULTS: ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES ON QUESTIONNAIRE Each question of the questionnaire will be analysed in this section.

4.6.1 Characteristics of the sample This section of the questionnaire seeks to identify respondents in terms of the

following:

Division;

Current position;

Years employed in the bank; and

Years in the current position.

SECTION A: PESONAL DETAILS

1) In which division are you currently employed? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Retail Credit 46 71.9% 71.9%IT 11 17.2% 89.1%Other 7 10.9% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Retail Credit had the highest representation of 71.9%. Group IT had a 17.2%

representation in the sample.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary n/a

Manager vs. non manager comparison n/a

81

Deductions The sample is most highly represented by Retail Credit respondents.

82

2) What level is your current position? Category reclassification

Questionnaire Category Analysis category

Non Managerial, Other Non Managers

JNR Manager, MID Manager, SNR Manager, Exec Level Managers

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Non Managerial 28 43.8% 43.8%JNR Manager 19 29.7% 73.4%MID Manager 8 12.5% 85.9%SNR Manager 4 6.3% 92.2%Exec Level 0 0.0% 92.2%Other 4 6.3% 98.4%No Response 1 1.6% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Category f % Cumulative %Non Managers 32 50.0% 50.0%Managers 31 48.4% 98.4%No Response 1 1.6% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

The sample represented 50.0% of non managers and 48.4% of managers.


Manager vs. non manager comparison See variable analysis

Deductions There is a balanced representation of manager and non manager levels.

83

3) How many years have you been with the organisation? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %2 - 4 yrs 24 37.5% 37.5%5- 7 yrs 11 17.2% 54.7%8 - 10yrs 10 15.6% 70.3%11-13yrs 4 6.3% 76.6%14+yrs 10 15.6% 92.2%Other 5 7.8% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Sample represented a wide range of tenure with the bank. Highest

representation is in the “2-4 yrs” category, representing 37.5%. “Other”

category is represented by 7.8%.



Deductions The representation of participants is across a wide spectrum of service in the

bank. This is a good indication that participants will respond with adequate

experience of the current performance appraisal process and system.

84

4) How many years have you been in the current position? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category # % Cumulative %<12mnths 11 17.2% 17.2%1 - 2 yrs 17 26.6% 43.8%3 - 4 yrs 18 28.1% 71.9%5 - 6 yrs 5 7.8% 79.7%7+ yrs 7 10.9% 90.6%Other 6 9.4% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Most respondents have been in their current position for more than 12

months. Only 17.2% of the sample is fairly new (i.e. less than 12 months) in

their current positions.



Deductions Given an average long service of respondents in question 3 above,

respondents in “<12 months” in current position still commented from

experience in their previous positions. It is not apparent who the “Other”

category represents in the variable analysis table.

85

4.6.2 Responses of respondents with subordinates. Although most of the managers have subordinates, it is possible to find

employees at managerial levels with no subordinates. Non managers can

have subordinates and these non-managers are referred to as supervisors.

SECTION B: EMPLOYEES WITH SUBORDINATES

5) Do you always have enough time to prepare before discussions with your subordinates? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f Total Respondents %

Respondents with subordinates %

Respondents with subordinates cumulative %

Yes 15 23.4% 75.0% 75.0%No 5 7.8% 25.0% 100.0%Total with subordinates 20 31.3% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 44 68.8% TOTAL 64 100.0% 100.0%

Only 20 of 64 respondents have subordinates. 75.0% with subordinates have

enough time to prepare before discussions with their subordinates.

Respondents’ elaboration commentary Most respondents commented that they have to wait for senior managers to

provide them with ratings for their immediate subordinates.


86

Deductions A quarter of employees in the bank do not have time to prepare before they

have performance appraisal discussions with their subordinates. It is possible

that appraisals are not seen as important, or, because the ratings will be

predefined, they do not see the need to prepare. This may result in focus not

on relevant issues and an improper application of the system.

87

6) How do you feel about appraising employees below you? Category reclassification


Daunting, Bad Experience, Playing GOD Negative

Enjoy it, Fulfilling Positive

Variable Analysis

Category f Total Sample %

Sample with Subordinates %

Sample with subordinates cumulative %

Daunting 2 3.1% 10.5% 10.5% Bad Experience 3 4.7% 15.8% 26.3% Playing GOD 1 1.6% 5.3% 31.6% Enjoy it 7 10.9% 36.8% 68.4% Fulfilling 6 9.4% 31.6% 100.0% Total with subordinates 19 29.7% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 45 70.3% TOTAL 64 100.0%

36.8% of sample with subordinates, “Enjoy” discussions with their

subordinates, whilst 31.6% find the experience “Fulfilling”. However, 15.8% of

the participants describe the experience as “Bad” and 10.5% as “Daunting”.




Negative 6 9.4% 31.6% 31.6% Positive 13 20.3% 68.4% 100.0% Total with subordinates 19 29.7% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 45 70.3% TOTAL 64 100.0%

31.6% of managers/supervisors who conduct performance appraisal

discussions have a negative feeling when appraising their subordinates.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Respondents however commented that they felt comfortable doing the

performance appraisal reviews especially when they have had enough time to

prepare. There were other comments that indicated that the process takes

time and they would rather use the time to do their day to day job.

88


Deduction A negative feeling when conducting a performance appraisal discussion can

result in the environment or climate not being conducive to a constructive

discussion. This could result in subordinates feeling intimidated and not being

able to be open and free to voice their opinions. It is also possible that the

staff acting as manger/supervisor may avoid confrontation with the staff

member thereby opting for average ratings.

89

7) Do you feel adequately trained to perform a PA discussion? Category reclassification


Inadequate Inadequate

Partly Adequate, Fully Adequate Adequate

Variable Analysis




Inadequate 2 3.1% 10.5% 10.5% Partly Adequate 7 10.9% 36.8% 47.4% Fully Adequate 10 15.6% 52.6% 100.0% Total with subordinates 19 29.7% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 45 70.3% TOTAL 64 100.0%

Of the 19 eligible respondents for this question, 36.8% of the participants felt

“Partly adequate” to perform performance appraisal discussion. 52.6% of the

participants, felt “Fully adequate” to perform performance appraisal discussion.




Inadequate 2 3.1% 10.5% 10.5%Adequate 17 26.6% 89.5% 100.0%Total with subordinates 19 29.7% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 45 70.3% TOTAL 64 100.0%

10.5% of managers/supervisors felt inadequate to conduct performance

appraisal discussions.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Although only 10 of the sample of 19 felt “Fully adequate”, most of the sample

commented that they have not been formally trained and therefore use their

own experience when conducting discussions with their subordinates.

90


Deduction Formal performance appraisal training is important so as to give those who

have to perform it correct guidance and support. This will go a long way to

ensure not only that they are confident, but also to ensure that they focus on

performance aspect and are honest and constructive in their feedback. Not

only is it important for the managers/supervisors to know how to give

feedback and probe for relevant information from their subordinates, but

subordinates should also be trained to know how to receive feedback. Lack

of formal training for managers/subordinates makes all employees victims of

an inadequately implemented system irrespective, of how good the system is.

91

4.6.3 Section for all respondents

Each and every employee in the bank has a manager/supervisor who

conducts their performance appraisal. This section of the questionnaire

focuses on the following issues:

Preparation by employees;

Understanding of the performance appraisal system;

Moderation process;

Discussion of the performance appraisal review;

Outcome of the performance appraisal process;

Development Plans; and

Other, including general comments from respondents.

SECTION C: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL (“PA”) For each of the questions in this section the analysis approach is as follows:

Frequency distributions for each variable; and

Cross tabulation of each variable analysis by respondents’ current

position (i.e. managers versus non managers). Most of the cross

tabulation cells contained less than 5 cases and the researcher could

therefore not draw valid and reliable statistical inferences. Most

categories are reclassified to provide meaningful numbers and

percentages.

92

C1: Preparation by employees 8) For your last PA session how much time were you given for preparation? Category reclassification


None, <=2 days, 3 – 6 days Less than 1 week

1 week, 2-3weeks, 4+weeks More than 1 week

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Less than 1 week 30 46.9% 46.9%More than 1 week 32 50.0% 96.9%No Response 2 3.1% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

46.9% of the sample is given less than a week as preparation time prior to the

appraisal discussion. 50.0% of the sample is given a week or more to prepare,

prior to their performance discussion with their managers.


Manager vs. non manager comparison

Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Less than 1 week 19 61% 11 35% More than 1 week 12 39% 20 65%

31 100% 31 100%

61% of non managers are given less than a week to prepare prior to their

performance appraisal discussion with their managers, versus only 35% of

managers.

93

Deductions Only half of the sample is given a week or more to prepare for their

performance appraisal discussions with their managers. There seems to be a

big difference when one compares the time that the managers are given for

preparation to that of their non-managerial counterparts. Not only are most

employees not given adequate time to prepare, non-managerial levels are in

many cases caught by surprise, to do the appraisal.

94

9) Was the preparation time given adequate? Category reclassification


Too short Too Short

Adequate, More than enough Enough

Not important to me Not important to me

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Too short 16 25.0% 25.0%Enough 42 65.6% 90.6%Not important to me 3 4.7% 95.3%No Response 3 4.7% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

25.0 % of the sample finds the time given prior to the discussion “Too short”.

65.6% of the sample said the time given for preparation is “Enough” whilst

4.7% said the time given for preparation is not important to them.



Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Too short 8 27% 8 26% Enough 21 70% 21 68% Not important to me 1 3% 2 6%

30 100% 31 100%

The table above shows an almost identical response between managers and

non managers.

Deductions It is quite obvious from question(8) than non managers are given less time to

prepare than managers, but surprisingly 70% of them still find the time to be

enough. This may imply that they do not see or understand the importance of

95

knowing in advance that the performance appraisal discussion will take place.

This then implies that in most cases the non managers do not have anything

to prepare anyway. This could also reflect lack of understanding of a proper

performance appraisal process, especially from managers/supervisors. It is

quite disturbing to note that some respondents, although only 4.7%, do not

see preparation time as important to them.

96

10) Do you feel that your manager (who does your appraisal) has done adequate preparation before the PA discussion with yourself? Category reclassification


Yes Yes

No , Not relevant No

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Yes 39 60.9% 60.9%No 22 34.4% 95.3%No Response 3 4.7% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

60.9% of the sample felt that their managers prepare adequately prior to the

discussion. 34.4% of the sample felt however that their managers do not

prepare prior to the performance appraisal discussion with them.

Respondent’s elaborative commentary Although a large proportion of respondents felt that their managers prepare

before their discussions, they still felt that the feedback discussions do not

focus on or consider relevant details, and only recent events were considered.

Some subordinates felt that their managers are not aware of their full potential.

Subordinates felt that the discussion sessions focus only on the negative, and

ratings are not adequately substantiated by their managers. Some

subordinates felt that managers perform this exercise just to get it out of the

way, as work and delivery is the most important thing.


Level

Non Managers Managers f % f % Yes 19 63% 20 65% No 11 37% 11 35%

30 100% 31 100%

97

There were no differences between the response of managers and non

managers on this variable.

Deductions Although 60.9% of the sample felt that their managers/supervisors prepare for

the performance appraisal discussion, the 34.4% that felt that their

manager/supervisor does not prepare has implications on the credibility of the

discussions and the outcome of the process. This could also relate back to

the fact that although some employees, especially non managers, are given

less than a week to prepare, they do not know that they need to prepare.

Some could also feel there is no need to prepare if managers/supervisors do

not prepare, and ratings are predetermined.

98

C2: Understanding of the PA system 11) Do you feel that your manager has been trained adequately to conduct a PA discussion? Category reclassification


Yes Yes

No , Don’t Know No

Variable Analysis


50.0% of the managers/supervisors are seen by their subordinates as being

adequately trained to conduct a performance appraisal discussion.

Respondents’ elaboration commentary n/a


Level

Non Managers Managers f % f % Yes 16 50% 16 52% No 16 50% 15 48%

32 100% 31 100%

48% of managers felt that their managers/supervisors are not adequately

trained to conduct performance appraisal discussions as compared to 50% of

non managers – almost identical.

Deductions

99

Close to half of the sample have no confidence in their managers’/supervisors’

ability to conduct a performance appraisal discussion. This like the questions

above points to a lack of confidence on the appraisal process and system.

100

12) Are the PA system measurement scales for Key Results Areas and Behavioural Competencies easy to understand? Category reclassification


Very Difficult, Difficult Difficult

Somewhat Easy, Easy Easy

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Difficult 13 20.3% 20.3%Easy 50 78.1% 98.4%No Response 1 1.6% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Only 20.3% of respondents find the measurement scale of the performance

appraisal system, ‘”difficult” to understand. The rest of the sample, 78.1% find

the measurement scale “easy” to understand.



Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Difficult 5 16% 8 26% Easy 27 84% 23 74%

32 100% 31 100%

26% of managers felt that the Key Results Areas and Behavioural

Competencies are “Difficult” to understand as opposed to 16% of non

managers.

Deductions More managers find the measurement scales more difficult than non

managers. One would have expected the reverse to be true.

101

13) Do you fully understand the current PA system applied? Category reclassification


Not al all Do not understand

Understand somewhat, Understand mostly Understand

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Do not understand 4 6.3% 6.3%Understand 59 92.2% 98.4%No Response 1 1.6% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Only 6.3% of the sample do not understand the current performance appraisal

system applied.



Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Do not Understand 2 6% 2 6%

Understand 30 94% 29 94%

32 100% 31 100%

There is no difference between managers and non managers with regard to

on the above question.

Deductions Despite the 20.3% who find the measurement scale to be “difficult” in

Question (12) above, it is interesting but also contradictory to see that 92.2%

of the sample understand the performance appraisal system applied.

102

14) Are you satisfied with the PA discussion between yourself and your manager? Category reclassification


Very Satisfied, Satisfied Satisfied

Dissatisfied, Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Satisfied 42 65.6% 65.6%Dissatisfied 21 32.8% 98.4%No Response 1 1.6% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

65.6% respondents are “satisfied” with their performance discussion between

themselves and their managers. 32.8% are “dissatisfied”.



Level

Non Managers Managers

f % f % Satisfied 22 69% 20 65% Dissatisfied 10 31% 11 35%

32 100% 31 100%

A slightly bigger proportion of non-managers (69%) is “satisfied” with the

performance discussions than the managers (65%).

Deductions Although 65.6% of respondents are “satisfied” with the discussions between

themselves and their managers/supervisors, the percentage that is

“dissatisfied” (32.8%), is of concern. The dissatisfaction between managers

and non-managers groups is over 30% and this needs attention. The

103

dissatisfaction could cover a wide range of issues and perhaps questions to

follow will assist in establishing the source of dissatisfaction.

104

15) How do you feel about user’s (manager & subordinate) ability to interpret measurement scales and critical behaviours in the PA system? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Open to subjectivity 27 42.2% 42.2%Very Clear 13 20.3% 62.5%No Comment 22 34.4% 96.9%No Response 2 3.1% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Although a large number of the sample find the measurement scale

“easy”(78.1%) in Question 12 and 65.6% are “satisfied” with the discussion

between themselves and their managers, Question 14, 42.2% of the sample

still find the interpretation of the measurement scales and critical behaviours

“open to subjectivity”. Only 20.3% finds the interpretation “very clear”.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Most common comments on this question from the respondents were that the

ratings are predetermined prior to performance appraisal discussion.

Respondents felt that their managers/supervisors are not very open and

honest with them when discussing the ratings and ratings are interpreted to

suit the situation at that particular moment, so as to tie back to the predefined

rating.


Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Open to subjectivity 10 32% 17 55% Very Clear 6 19% 7 23% No Comment 15 48% 7 23% 31 100% 31 100%

105

55% of managers as opposed to 32% of non managers felt that the

performance system measurement scales and critical behaviours are open to

subjectivity. Approximately half of non managers answered “No comment” for

this question.

Deductions Positive responses came from only 20.3% of the sample, i.e. they felt that the

interpretation is “very clear”. Most of the responses are not very encouraging,

i.e. 42.2% felt that the interpretation is “open to subjectivity” with 55% and

32% of managers and non managers respectively. Once again this questions

the credibility of the system to the users. One factor that stands out from this

analysis is that 34.4% of respondents could not comment on this question,

more so for non managers (48%). Is it because of fear of victimisation, lack of

interest or simply the inability to comment? This is one aspect of the study

that needs close attention especially during the analysis of other questions to

follow.

106

C3: Moderation process 16) In your understanding is the moderation done BEFORE or AFTER the PA discussion between manager and employee? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Before 25 39.1% 39.1%After 15 23.4% 62.5%Before & After 14 21.9% 84.4%Don’t know 7 10.9% 95.3%No Response 3 4.7% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

10.9% of the sample “do not know” when the moderation takes place. 39.1%

of the sample understands the moderation to be done “before” the

performance appraisal discussion.



Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Before 9 29% 16 53% After 11 35% 4 13% Before & After 7 23% 7 23% Don't Know 4 13% 3 10%

31 100% 30 100%

Managers and non managers have a different understanding of when

moderation takes place. 53% of managers and 29% of non managers think

that moderation it is done “before”, whilst 13% and 35% of managers and non

managers respectively think that moderation is done “after” the performance

107

appraisal discussion. For both groups there is more than 10% that “do not

know” when moderation takes place.

Deductions There is inconsistent understanding of when moderation takes place among

the staff. This is even more so between the managerial and non-managerial

staff. The responses to this question indicate lack of consistent understanding

in the appraisal process in the organisation.

108

17) In your opinion is the moderation process fair? Category reclassification


Not Fair Not Fair

Partially Fair, Fair Fair

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Not Fair 21 32.8% 32.8%Fair 34 53.1% 85.9%No Response 9 14.1% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

32.8% of the respondents felt that moderation is “Not fair”.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Respondents commented that individuals’ actual performance is diluted by the

forced ranking process. They felt that the fact that in most cases senior

management does the moderation, the process is flawed as most of them are

not close to the individuals’ ability and circumstances. The process is not

transparent enough for line managers to provide relevant input towards the

rating and this is emphasised by the fact that even line managers are given

the predefined ratings by senior managers from which to conduct the

performance appraisal discussions. Respondents felt that the moderation

process is used to slice the bonus pool.


Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Not Fair 9 33% 12 43% Fair 18 67% 16 57%

27 100% 28 100%

Big differences are seen in the “Not Fair” and “Fair” Category. 43% of

managers, as opposed to 33% of non managers think that the moderation

109

process is “not fair” and 57% of managers and 67% of non managers think

that the moderation process is “fair”.

Deductions There are a significant proportion of employees that felt that line managers

are not involved enough in the determination of their ratings. This is of

concern and 32.8% of the respondents deem the process to be unfair. This is

even more so for the managers’ group. The area of concern here is if

employees at managerial level are not convinced that the process is fair, how

can they be able to convince employees below them?

110

C4: Discussion of the PA review

18) In your last appraisal discussion, how did your manager’s rating compare to yours? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Better 13 20.3% 20.3%Worse 21 32.8% 53.1%Same 23 35.9% 89.1%No Response 7 10.9% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

20.3% of the respondents were rated “better” than expected, 32.8% were

rated “worse” than expected and 35.9% were rated as they expected.



Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Better 7 23% 6 23% Worse 11 35% 10 38% Same 13 42% 10 38%

31 100% 26 100%

Although there is no major difference between managers’ and non-managers’

ratings expectations, a slightly higher percentage of managers felt that they

were rated “worse” than expected in their last performance appraisal

discussion with their manager/supervisor. A slightly higher percentage (42%)

of non-mangers felt that the rating received was the “same” as theirs.

111

Deduction The perception of performance for staff and their managers/supervisors is

only consistent for 35.9% of the sample. This is an indication of lack of

feedback other than the appraisal discussion session.

112

19) In your last appraisal discussion, did your manager ask you for your input? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis


Most subordinates were asked for their input during the performance appraisal

discussion with their managers, 71.9%. Only 25.0% of the sample were not

asked for input during the performance appraisal discussion with their

managers/supervisors.



Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Yes 24 77% 22 71% No 7 23% 9 29%

31 100% 31 100%

Slightly more non-managers (77%) are asked for input during performance

appraisal discussion as opposed to managers (71%).

Deductions Close to a quarter of staff are not asked for input during discussions with their

managers/supervisors. This indicates that there are still cases where the

appraisal sessions are not a discussion but a one way session (top-down).

113

20) In your last appraisal discussion, was your input used in giving the final rating? Category reclassification


Yes Yes

No , Not asked for input, Don’t Know No

Variable Analysis


Although 71.9% respondents were asked for input during their performance

appraisal discussions with their managers/supervisors in Question 19 above,

only 40.6% of the respondents’ input is used in the final rating.



Level


f % f % Yes 16 50% 10 32% No 16 50% 21 68%

32 100% 31 100%

50% of non-managers felt that their input was used to determine the final

rating as opposed to 32% of managers. 68% of managers felt that their input

was not used to determine the final rating.

114

Deduction The fact that the input of only 40.6% of the cases is used in determining their

final rating, could undermine the credibility of the process and even

discourage employees from preparing prior to the discussions so as to fully

participate during the discussions with their managers/supervisors. This could

mean that employees feel that the ratings are predefined and there is nothing

that they say that would make the ratings modified. This feeling could even

make them see preparation as a futile exercise.

115

21) Does your manager substantiate his/her rating with specific incidents? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Always 23 35.9% 35.9%Sometimes 30 46.9% 82.8%Never 8 12.5% 95.3%No Response 3 4.7% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

35.9% of managers/supervisors “always” substantiate their ratings with

specific incidents. 46.9% substantiate “Sometimes” and 12.9% “never”

substantiate their ratings.



Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Always 10 32% 13 43% Sometimes 17 55% 13 43% Never 4 13% 4 13%

31 100% 30 100%

13% of managers and non-managers have had experience of

managers/supervisors rating them without substantiating with specific

incidents.

Deductions Managers/supervisors need to substantiate their ratings when discussing the

appraisal of staff. 35.6% of cases where this happens is not good enough,

especially in ensuring a credible performance appraisal system. This low

116

substantiation could also be as a result of unclear expectations and

measurement criteria that is agreed and signed by both parties.

117

22) In your last appraisal discussion, did the discussion focus on the following? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Performance Behavioural Competency Development f % Cumulative % f % Cumulative % f % Cumulative % Yes 57 89.1% 89.1% 57 89.1% 89.1% 43 67.2% 67.2% No 5 7.8% 96.9% 4 6.3% 95.3% 18 28.1% 95.3% No Response 2 3.1% 100.0% 3 4.7% 100.0% 3 4.7% 100.0% TOTAL 64 100.0% 64 100.0% 64 100.0%

89.1% of the previous discussions held with subordinates, focused on

Performance and Behavioural Competencies. Only 67.2% of the discussion,

focused on Development.



Performance Behavioural Competency Development Level Level Level




f % f % f % f % f % f % Yes 29 94% 28 90% 30 97% 27 90% 21 68% 22 73% No 2 6% 3 10% 1 3% 3 10% 10 32% 8 27%

31 100% 31 100% 31 100% 30 100% 31 100% 30 100%

Although the focus of discussion is not very different for managers and non

managers with their managers/supervisors, the development discussion is

slightly more for managers than for non-managers.

118

Deductions Development seems to be taking second place when managers/supervisors

discuss performance appraisals with their staff. The current system and forms

do not have a section for development discussion. (See Appendix C and D

for non managers’ and managers’ appraisal forms respectively). This means

that discussions on development plans are not formalised and it is just by

chance that they are discussed, documented and formally implemented with

action plans and timeframes.

119

C5: Outcome of the PA process

23) Briefly describe how you felt BEFORE your last PA discussion. Category reclassification


Looking forward to it, Motivated Positive

Anxiety, Down, Scared Negative

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Looking forward to it 16 25.0% 25.0%Motivated 14 21.9% 46.9%Anxiety 19 29.7% 76.6%Down 8 12.5% 89.1%Scared 1 1.6% 90.6%No Response 6 9.4% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Category f % Cumulative %Positive 30 46.9% 46.9%Negative 28 43.8% 90.6%No Response 6 9.4% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

46.9% of the respondents felt positive before their performance appraisal

discussion with their managers/supervisors.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Before the performance appraisal discussions, employees that look forward to

the discussions are the ones that feel that they have been doing well. In most

cases these employees are interested in knowing what development areas

they need to work on, discuss other career opportunities in the bank and want

to use this forum to raise other issues that they have never had time to raise.

There is however, a large group of respondents that felt negative before the

performance appraisal discussion because they perceive that the ratings are

predefined and any discussion is just a formality.

120

Other respondents have not received regular feedback and are therefore

anxious and know that the outcome could be a surprise. Respondents also

felt that the rating is in most cases perception rather than individual true

capability and performance. Respondents also felt that the system is used to

reduce the bank's staff costs.


Positive Negative Level Level Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers f % f % f % f % Marked 13 22% 17 31% 17 19% 11 14% Not Marked 47 78% 38 69% 73 81% 70 86%

60 100% 55 100% 90 100% 81 100%

More managers marked a positive feeling before their performance discussion

with their managers/supervisors than non-managers.

Deductions 43.8% of respondents had a negative feeling before discussions with their

managers/supervisors. This feeling could be attributed to many issues

ranging from:

Lack of regular discussions with managers/supervisors;

Anxiety about the senior managers’ perception about individuals; and

Seen as time to receive negative feedback.

121

24) Briefly describe how you felt AFTER your last PA discussion. Category reclassification


Angry, Discouraged, Down Negative

Neutral Neutral

Motivated Positive

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Angry 8 11.8% 11.8%Discouraged 14 20.6% 32.4%Down 4 5.9% 38.2%Neutral 21 30.9% 69.1%Motivated 16 23.5% 92.6%No Response 5 7.4% 100.0%TOTAL 68* 100.0%

Note*: Some of the respondents ticked more than one selection, hence a total of = 68 and not 64.

Category f % Cumulative %Negative 26 38.2% 38.2%Neutral 21 30.9% 69.1%Positive 16 23.5% 92.6%No Response 5 7.4% 100.0%TOTAL 68 100.0%

38.2% of the respondents experienced a negative feeling after their

performance appraisal discussion. 30.9% are “neutral” and only 23.5% have

a positive feeling, “motivated”.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Comments of the sample that felt positive after the performance appraisal

discussion were as follows:

Feedback was better than expected;

Their efforts were recognised;

Strengths and weaknesses were highlighted and they knew what to

work on; and

They were told that more responsibilities were to come their way.

The negative feelings were mostly due to the following:

122

Employees’ input was not considered;

Manager could not substantiate rating;

Managers’ comments during the performance appraisal discussion was

not work related;

Deserved better rating than they were given; and

The rating was worse than expected and came as a big surprise.


Negative Neutral Positive Level Level Level




f % f % f % f % f % f % Marked 10 11% 16 19% 11 37% 10 34% 9 30% 7 25% Not Marked 80 89% 68 81% 19 63% 19 66% 21 70% 21 75%

90 100% 84 100% 30 100% 29 100% 30 100% 28 100%

A very similar number of managers and non managers had a neutral feeling

after their discussions with their managers/supervisors. It is interesting to

note that non managers have a higher percentage (30%) of positive feeling

than managers (25%). Managers have a higher negative feeling (19%) after

their appraisal discussions than their non-manager counterparts (11%).

Deductions More meaningful deductions are drawn from a comparison of this question

(24) and the previous question (23). See summary table below: POSITIVE FEELING

Non Manager Manager

Before After Before After

22% 30% 31% 25%

The number of non managers who had a positive feeling has increased after

their performance appraisal discussions with their managers/supervisors from

22% to 30%, whilst that of managers has decreased from 31% to 25%.

NEGATIVE FEELING

Non Manager Manager

123

Before After Before After

19% 11% 14% 19%

The reverse holds true for negative feeling. Non- managers had decreased

from 19% to 11%& whilst that of managers had increased from 14% to 19%.

The above responses tie up with question 18, where 42% of non-managers

were rated the same as expected as opposed to 38% of managers.

124

25) In your perception, what is the outcome of the PA discussion used for? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Career Development Salary Review Promotion

Category f % Cumulative % f % Cumulative % f % Cumulative %

Yes 38 59.4% 59.4% 50 78.1% 78.1% 33 51.6% 51.6% No 25 39.1% 98.5% 12 18.8% 96.9 28 43.8% 95.4

No Response 1 1.6% 100.0% 2 3.1% 100.0% 3 4.7% 100.0%

TOTAL 64 100.0% 64 100.0% 64 100.0%

Bonus

Release/Exit

Category f % Cumulative % f % Cumulative %

Yes 39 60.9% 60.9 23 35.9% 35.9%

No 21 32.8% 93.7% 29 45.3% 71.2

No Response 4 6.3% 100.0% 12 18.8% 100.0%

TOTAL 64 100.0% 64 100.0%

59.4% perceive the outcome of the performance appraisal discussion to be

used for Career Development, 78.1% for Salary review, 51.6% for

Promotions, 60.9% for Bonus and 35.9% for Exit purposes.


125


Career Development Salary Review Promotion

Level Level Level

Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers

f % f % f % f % f % f %

Yes 19 59% 19 61% 24 75% 26 87% 14 44% 19 66%

No 13 41% 12 39% 8 25% 4 13% 18 56% 10 34%

32 100% 31 100% 32 100% 30 100% 32 100% 29 100%

Bonus Release/Exit

Level Level

Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers

f % f % f % f %

Yes 17 55% 22 56% 10 36% 13 54%

No 14 45% 17 44% 18 64% 11 46%

31 100% 39 100% 28 100% 24 100%

Perception of use of the performance appraisal discussion outcome for

different categories is widely different for managers and non-managers with

the exception of Career Development and Bonus. More managers than non-

managers believe that the rating is used for promotion and salary review. 56%

of non managers and 34% of managers do not believe that the outcome of the

performance appraisal discussion drives promotions.

Deductions It is notably concerning that a large proportion of non-managers (41%) and

managers (39%) do not perceive the outcome of the performance appraisal to

be used for career development. Responses in this question tie up with

question 22, where the focus of their recent discussion focus on development

was only 67.2%. It is also of concern, especially for managers, to have 44%

of them not thinking that the outcome of the performance appraisals is used

for their bonuses. The responses above suggest that a large percentage of

staff do not see a link between the performance appraisals outcomes and

career development, promotions and bonus. This once again questions the

credibility of the performance appraisal process amongst the employees.

126

26) At your last PA discussion, do you know where in the 20/70/10 ranking your rating placed you? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis


42.2% of the participants do not know where they fell in the 20/70/10 ranking

of their last performance appraisal discussions.



Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Yes 17 55% 18 58% No 14 45% 13 42%

31 100% 31 100%

Although not very different, slightly more managers (58%) know where in the

20/70/10 ranking their last rating placed them compared to 55% of non-

managers.

Deductions Managers/supervisors do not communicate to staff their ratings, relative to

their peers. This then explains why they do not see the link between their

ratings and outcomes such as promotions and bonuses because they do not

have a yardstick with which to base the ratings. This could explain why only

14.1% of the respondents could not respond to question 17. Not only was

127

there a vastly different understanding of when exactly moderation takes place

in question 16, but there were 10.9% respondents who “do not know” and

4.7% who opted for “no response” to their knowledge of when in the appraisal

process moderation takes place.

128

27) In your opinion, was your final rating and rank used to determine: Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Salary Review

Bonus

Category f % Valid % f % Valid %

Yes 42 65.6% 65.6% 32 50.0% 50.0% No 13 20.3% 85.9% 22 34.4% 84.4%

No Response 9 14.1% 100.0% f 15.6% 100.0%

TOTAL 64 100.0% 64 100.0%

Promotion Not used at all


Yes 29 45.3% 45.3% 6 9.4% 9.4% No 25 39.1% 84.4% 29 45.3% 54.7

No Response 10 15.6% 100.0% f 45.3% 100.0%

TOTAL 64 100.0% 64 100.0%

Of the sample, 65.6% said that their rating was used for salary review, 50.0%

for bonus, 45.3% for promotion and 9.4% said the rating was not used at all.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Although a small percentage of the sample commented that their ratings are

used for salary reviews, bonuses and promotions, there was a large

proportion of the sample that commented that their ratings are not linked to

anything at all.

129


Salary Review Bonus Level Level Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers f % f % f % f % Yes 22 79% 20 74% 11 44% 21 72% No 6 21% 7 26% 14 56% 8 28%

28 100% 27 100% 25 100% 29 100%

Promotion Not used at all Level Level Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers f % f % f % f % Yes 15 54% 14 54% 3 17% 3 18% No 13 46% 12 46% 15 83% 14 82%

28 100% 26 100% 18 100% 17 100%

Most managers (72%) responded “Yes” to the fact that their ratings are used

for their “bonus”. This is very different from the non managers (44%).

Deductions The big response to differences on bonus between the two groups could be

attributed to the fact that non-managers do not qualify for the bonus pool as

their bonus / 13th cheque is agreed with the trade union.

130

C6: Development Plan (“DP”)

28) How would you rate your DP in relation to your long-term (“LT”) career objectives? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %No DP 19 29.7% 29.7%DP-No match to LT career objectives 13 20.3% 50.0%DP-Matches LT career objectives 27 42.2% 92.2%No Response 5 7.8% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

Note*: DP=Development Plan and LT = Long Term

29.7% of the sample do not have a development plan. 20.3% have a

development plan but in their opinion it is not in line with their long term career

objectives. 42.2% have development plans that are in line with their long term

objectives.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Although 42.2% responded that they have development plans that are in line

with their long term career objectives, respondents still commented that their

development plans are their own responsibility and they cannot rely on their

managers for that. Respondents also commented that the bank offers them a

job and not a career. Respondents also felt that training offered by the bank

is to enable them to do specific jobs and is not intended to grow their careers.

Some commented that development plans discussed with their managers are

in most cases not formalised and cover short term Key Results Areas.

131


Level Non Managers Managers f % f % No DP 8 28% 11 37% DP<>LT* 6 21% 7 23% DP=LT* 15 52% 12 40%

29 100% 30 100%

Note*: DP=Development Plan and LT = Long Term

52% of non-managers have development plans that are in line with their long

term career objectives as opposed to 40% of managers. 37% of managers do

not have development plans versus 28% of non-managers. Deductions It is concerning to see that only 42.2% of staff have development plans that

match their long term career objectives. Reading the elaborate commentary

one gets the feeling that even the 42.2%, their managers/supervisors are not

aware of existence of the DPs. Respondents’ commentary gives the reader

an impression that a large proportion of staff do not see their long term career

objectives being met in the organisation (i.e. “the organisation only offers a job

and not career”). It is of concern to see half of the staff having long term

career objectives that are not addressed collectively with their

managers/supervisors.

132

29) Does the DP have actions and time frames?

Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Actions Time Frames


Yes 28 43.8% 43.8% 24 37.5% 37.5% No 24 37.5% 81.3% 26 40.6% 78.1%

No Response 12 18.8% 100.0% 14 21.9% 100.0%

TOTAL 64 100.0% 64 100.0%

43.8% of the sample have actions for their development plans and 37.5%

have time frames for their development plans.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary In instances where respondents commented that development plans exist,

actions and time frames are not implemented or closely monitored.


Actions Time Frames Level Level Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers f % f % f % f % Yes 17 65% 11 42% 13 52% 11 44% No 9 35% 15 58% 12 48% 14 56%

26 100% 26 100% 25 100% 25 100%

Managers who answered “Yes” to “Actions” on the development plans

comprise just over 42% versus 65% of non-managers. From the above table

it looks like more employees at non-managerial levels have development

plans and these have actions and timeframes. This does not seem to be the

case for employees at managerial levels.

Deductions Development plans are not prioritised by managers and supervisors.

133

C7: Other

30) When are job expectations discussed between you and your manager? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Mid Year PA discussion End Year PA discussion


Yes 31 48.4% 48.4% 28 43.8% 62.2% Never 15 23.4% 71.8% 17 26.6% 70.4%

No Response 18 28.1% 100.0% 19 29.7% 100.0%

TOTAL 64 100.0% 64 100.0%

Beginning of year Beginning of Assignment


Yes 19 29.7% 45.2% 18 28.1% 45.0% Never 23 35.9% 65.6% 22 34.4% 62.5%

No Response 22 34.4% 100.0% 24 37.5% 100.0%

TOTAL 64 100.0% 64 100.0%

The percentages on cases where expectations are discussed are very low

irrespective of the time of the year.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary Most people commented that the current expectations are not directly linked

to the Key Results Areas and therefore not always clear. Staff also

commented that Key Results Areas are set too late in the year and not easily

measurable. Staff commented that their seniors use the carrot and stick

approach when discussing Key Results Areas with them.

134


MidYearPA EndYearPA Level Level



f % f % f % f % Yes 14 61% 17 74% 13 57% 15 68% No 9 39% 6 26% 10 43% 7 32%

23 100% 23 100% 23 100% 22 100%

Start of Year Start of Assignment Level Level



f % f % f % f % Yes 10 48% 9 43% 8 42% 10 48% No 11 52% 12 57% 11 58% 11 52%

21 100% 21 100% 19 100% 21 100%

Both managers’ and non-managers’ experience of expectations discussion

with their seniors is during mid year performance appraisal discussion, (61%

and 74% for non managers and managers respectively) and end of the year

(57% and 68% for non managers and managers respectively). Responses for

start of the year and start of the assignment are less than 50% for both groups

of employees.

Deductions Given that more that half of the staff do not discuss expectations with their

managers/supervisors at the beginning of the year or assignments, one can

concluded that employees carry on with their jobs in most cases without

agreeing on expectations with their managers/supervisors. There is a

significant number of staff that still do not discuss expectations with their

managers/supervisors even during the formal appraisal sessions (23.4% and

26.6% mid year and end year appraisal sessions respectively). It is therefore

not surprising that 32.8 % are dissatisfied with the performance appraisal

discussion in question 14. 32.8% are rated worse that expected in question

18. 43.8% have a negative feeling before the appraisal discussion in question

23 and 38.2% have a negative feeling after their performance appraisal

discussions with their managers/supervisors in question 24.

135

31) Other than the formal Mid Year and End Year PA sessions, do you receive informal feedback during the year? Category reclassification None

Variable Analysis

Category f % Cumulative %Frequently 19 29.7% 29.7%Seldom 28 43.8% 73.4%Never 14 21.9% 95.3%No Response 3 4.7% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%

21.9% of the sample “never” receive informal feedback other than during

formal performance review sessions.

Respondents’ elaborative commentary A large proportion of the sample commented that they receive weekly informal

and monthly formal feedbacks. Some say that informal feedback is only given

when it is negative.


Level Non Managers Managers f % f %

Frequently 7 23% 12 40%

Seldom 16 52% 12 40% Never 8 26% 6 20%

31 100% 30 100%

Managers receive feedback more “frequently” (40%) whilst non managers

receive feedback “seldom” (52%).

Deductions Percentage of staff that receive no informal feedback is high at 21.9%. This

does not give employees an opportunity continuously to improve themselves

whilst exploiting their strengths. Although more managers receive frequent

136

feedback than non managers, it is surprising to see that in question 18, less of

them (37%) as opposed to 45% of non-managers receive expected ratings.

One can only conclude that the informal feedback does not give an accurate

indication of what the managers/supervisors expect from their subordinates.

Informal feedback should be used as a build up to formal appraisal

discussions and ratings and if they happen that frequently, surprises should

not be expected, unless the measurement criteria and the ratings are

inconsistently interpreted by both parties.

137

32) Please elaborate in general on what your perception is on the effective use of the current performance appraisal system in the bank.

Respondents elaboration commentary A general and most common perception of the sample is that the current

performance appraisal system is open to subjectivity and is biased. Staff felt

that the current system is not transparent enough to give them confidence;

that it is used to drive outcomes such as salary review, bonus and promotions.

Staff perception of the forced ranking is that it is done with no significant input

from line mangers, and senior mangers use it as a tool to slice the bonus pool

to the detriment of high performers. This they sometimes felt to be favourable

for those who are more popular with senior management than others.

Many of them also felt that employees are left alone to conduct the

performance appraisal discussion as they see fit with no formal training and

guidance. This has led them to use their own experience and gut feel, which

opens up the system to inconsistency.

Respondents commented that supervisors and managers should be penalised

for not being able to develop staff under them. They felt that they should

incorporate 360 reviews to moderate the rating outcomes.

Respondents felt that a proper performance appraisal system that is

transparent and openly linked to growth and reward can go a long way as a

retention strategy tool.

138

4.7 WORKSHOP & SURVEY (GROUP FINANCE) Group Finance was one of the divisions that the researcher selected to

include in the sample. In the end the division was excluded from the sample

because Group Finance Human Resources had recently (March 2005)

conducted a workshop and a survey covering broader issues around

Performance Appraisal. Group Finance HR was in the process of defining

action plans for the outcomes of the workshop and the survey. The intention

was to implement the action plans and conduct another similar survey in

March 2006, after implementation of the action plan from March 2005

outcome. To avoid confusion and mixed results, Group Finance HR advised

and allowed the researcher to use the outcome of the workshop and the

survey. The outcomes of the workshop and the survey are discussed in

sections below.

4.7.1 Workshop The workshop was conducted as an open forum, where employees were

given the opportunity to voice out their opinions on a range of issues around

the current performance appraisal process. Outcome of the questions or

issues raised were grouped under common headings and are listed below.

4.7.1.1 Performance Contracts & Key Results Areas (“KRA”)

How KRAs are set and who makes the decision?

Performance contracts are not being discussed and signed.

Performance agreements are not provided when employees rotate or

change jobs in the organisation.

4.7.1.2 Performance Rating

Lack of understanding of the performance rating scale.

Lack of differentiation between a 4 & 5 rating.

139

Managers’ failure to provide clarity on how to achieve a 4 & 5 on the

rating scale.

Performance ratings are discussed by management and allocated prior

to employees’ involvement.

The appropriateness and relevance of the performance scores, salary

increases, bonus and forced ranking are not clear.

Employees are forced to sign performance ratings they do not agree to.

4.7.1.3 Performance appraisal

Lack of understanding of the performance appraisal process.

Lack of consistency in the performance appraisal process.

Performance appraisals are personal and not job related.

The impact of relationship during performance discussions, particularly

when employees have a different view. There appears to be tendency

towards victimisation.

4.7.1.4 Other

Perceived negative attitude displayed by employees.

Lack of management availability to provide regular feedback on

performance.

Where feedback is provided, the focus tends to be on the negative

aspects of performance and very little recognition and acknowledgment

of a job well done.

4.7.2 Survey Group Finance survey was done via email from which staff had to select

voting buttons to indicate “Yes”, “No” and “Somewhat” for the four statements.

The statements were:

My manager had a performance appraisal discussion with me;

My manager discussed 2004 KRA’s with me prior to my performance

appraisal;

140

My manager gave me feedback on positive and negative aspects of my

performance during 2004; and

My manager discussed ways in which I could improve my performance in

2005.

Although there were some “Yes” responses to some of the questions below,

the “No” and “Somewhat” were in the majority. The revelations of the survey

were bundled with that of the workshop and are discussed in the 4.7.3 below.

4.7.3 Group Finance HR summary of the workshop and the survey

Information gathered from Group Finance staff using the workshop and the

survey was summarised by Group Finance HR as listed below.

Managers/supervisors had not discussed performance appraisal with

their subordinates. This was not in the majority.

Line managers need special attention and additional coaching on the

performance appraisal procedures.

There are problems with the performance appraisal process most

notably with setting of KRAs. KRAs are not set and agreed to by most

staff members.

Line managers should be assessed on how well they follow the

performance appraisal process. This should be done through input

from staff and tools such as the multi-rater. This input should form part

of the line managers overall performance rating.

Line managers have not been disciplined to discuss ways in which

performance improvements could be achieved. There seem to be lack

of discussion on both the positive and negative aspects of the

performance.

141

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Questionnaire - descriptive analysis The questionnaire and Group Finance HR workshop and survey although at

different levels of detail and design, covered issues around performance

appraisal. Apart from the differences in detail and designs, the core outcomes

and findings are similar. Without referring to any study in particular, the

findings will be concluded as per the main themes of the problem statement,

the questionnaire leading to the main objective of the study, to establish the

perception of employees on effective use of the performance appraisal system

in the organisation.

5.1.1 Preparation for the performance appraisal

The study revealed that preparation prior to a formal performance appraisal

discussion is not done adequately in the bank. Non-managers were the group

that was given the least notification prior to the discussion. One can not

ignore the fact that managers/supervisors felt ready for the discussion when

they had time to prepare. This could mean a couple of things, namely

Because of lack of confidence on the manager/supervisors side, they

prefer to catch their subordinates by surprise so that the discussion can

be one way and less confrontational;

Managers/supervisors take the performance appraisal discussion for

granted and the discussion takes place depending on the workload on

their desks;

Managers/supervisors are not held accountable for adhering to the

bank’s performance appraisal process and procedures; or

Managers/supervisors do not understand the importance of the

discussion.

In most cases managers/supervisors deemed the experience as unpleasant.

In section 3.4.1.1, applications of performance management, Edmonstone

142

(1996:10) states that both parties must prepare for the review sessions and

eliminate surprises, assess performance trends and plan for the future.

5.1.2 Training of the performance appraisal process The study has highlighted that the staff have not been trained on how to give

and receive performance appraisal feedback. Managers/supervisors have not

received formal training and use their own experience and gut feel. Lack of

training is a source of inconsistent interpretation from the users of the system.

Subordinates do not think that their managers/supervisors are trained

adequately to perform the exercise and also feel that they do not focus on

relevant issues. This is a big concern as not only does it place users in a

difficult situation in terms of inability to conduct the process accurately and to

deal with different reactions, but most importantly it undermines the credibility

of the process completely.

5.1.3 Understanding of the performance appraisal system and process

Although most participants feel that the measurement scales are easy to

understand, users feel that the ratings are open to subjectivity. There was

also reference to lack of understanding concerning the difference between a

rating of 4 and 5. One other disturbing finding was the inconsistent

understanding of the moderation process. The moderation process is

deemed unfair by a significant proportion of staff. Employees feel that line

managers’ participation is non existent in the moderation process. Employees

can not understand how senior managers can feed the finalised rating to line

managers. Staff feels that line managers drive the discussion to support the

pre defined rating given. One can not help but marry this argument with lack

of preparation given to subordinates, so as to catch them off guard with a

predefined rating that is difficult to justify.

143

5.1.4 Performance appraisal discussion

A large proportion of staff has a negative feeling towards performance

appraisal discussion which is disturbing to note. This could allude to a lack of

clarification regarding expectations from both parties. Employees have a

strong perception that feedback focuses only on negatives. One reads that

discussion and feedback is in most cases one way. Most subordinates are

not requested to give input and if requested, it is not used. Respondents

claim that input is ignored since ratings are predefined.

5.1.5 Use of the outcome of the performance appraisal rating

According to the performance appraisal process (Appendix E), employees’

final ratings range from 1(poor) to 5(outstanding) after which they will be

ranked according to the 20/70/10 forced ranking. Employees could know their

final rating but in most cases they do not know where in the 20/70/10 forced

ranking they are. This bears testimony to employees response is that there is

not a direct link between the performance ratings and drivers such as salary

review, promotions and bonuses. Laud (199:29) states that lack of specificity

in the linkage of outcome of the performance appraisal to the use, leaves

room for numerous mitigating factors to intrude, and may obscure the

motivational purpose of the system.

5.1.6 Career development in performance appraisal discussions

Although a significant number of non managers felt that their career

development aspirations are taken care of, in general career development

was seen as one of the aspects managers/supervisors overlooked. It is

however not surprising because how can one expect to address development

if they can not sufficiently address issues of performance?

Managers/subordinates are doing the bare minimum as expected by Human

Resources, and that is to complete the performance appraisal forms with their

subordinates.

144

Career development is not formalised in the forms and the process. More

disturbing is comments such as “the organisation offers jobs and not

careers”. Mavis (1994:44) agrees with this finding and states that assistance

required by employees for areas that need improvement and solid plans on

how to improve them are often overlooked during the performance appraisal

feedback process.

5.1.7 Overall perception of employees on effective performance appraisal discussions

Employees’ do not believe that their managers/supervisors know what they

are doing regarding the performance appraisal, due to lack of training and use

of predefined ratings. Coupled by the lack of proper understanding of the

process (e.g. moderation, forced ranking, etc) employees do not believe that

the performance appraisal ratings drive any outcome.

5.2 Questionnaire - inferential analysis The hypotheses were formulated to infer from the sample used in the study,

employment perception on effective use of the performance appraisal system

in the organisation.

H1 : Different divisions’ perception on the effective use of the performance

appraisals systems and processes is the same.

H2 : Managerial and non-managerial employees’ perception on the effective

use of the performance appraisals systems and processes is the same.

H3 : Understanding of the purpose of the performance appraisals systems and

processes is the same in all divisions.

H4 : Understanding of the purpose of the performance appraisals systems and

processes is the same for managerial and non-managerial employees.

H5: Perception of users is that performance appraisal outcomes drive

compensations, promotions and development plans in the organisation.

Using SPSS statistical package, the above hypotheses could not be tested

because of the following reasons;

145

There were only 18 cases from the Group IT division, therefore any

statistical comparisons could not produce statistically valid inferences

from which differences could be compared;

Although there were 32 and 31, non-manager and manager

respondents respectively, most of the other variables had categories of

5 or less cases when cross tabulated with position level (i.e. manager

and non-managerial). Where possible such categories were grouped

to use for descriptive comparison analysis.

146

CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations to address the problems identified in the themes described

above are presented below:

6.1 All staff in the organisation need to go through a training process so as to

establish a common understanding of the organisation’s philosophy of

performance appraisal process. This should cover the following issues:

When are formal appraisal sessions scheduled;

What are the different parties’ roles, expectation and deliverables

throughout the process;

Consistent definitions, interpretation and understanding of the rating

scales;

Consistent definition, interpretation and understanding of the critical

behaviours;

Consistent understanding of what is moderation and why it is

necessary;

Role of line and senior management in the moderation process;

When does moderation take place;

How do the performance ratings link with outcomes such as salary

review, promotions and bonus ;

All staff members must be trained on how to receive feedback; and

Staff with subordinates must be trained on how to receive and give

feedback.

6.2 The final rating of staff must be communicated to staff in the context of

the 20/70/10 forced ranking process. The 20/70/10 forced ranking must

be explained in the context of salary increase and bonus calculation to all

staff. This will make the process transparent and staff can always know

where they are relative to their peers. It is also recommended that good

performance is celebrated informally within the divisions, and individuals

are recognised. This should be supported by informal regular feedback

so as to avoid surprises among and about other individuals.

147

6.3 Definition of Key Result Area must be linked to organisations objective.

The link must be obvious both at senior management and also at the very

lowest level of staff members.

6.4 Management must be held accountable to agree and finalise KRA with

their staff member at the beginning of each year. Measurement criteria

must be agreed and signed by both parties. Management and

supervisors must be encouraged to have regular feedback sessions with

their staff.

6.5 In order to establish the culture of development in the organisation, it is

recommended that performance appraisal and development planning are

treated as separate discussion sessions between line manager and staff.

This will ensure that both performance and development issues are

given the proper attention they deserve and there is no clouding of one

with the other. It is true that some of the performance development

areas may be inputs to the development planning, but this will ensure

that the development planning is long term focused. Development

planning must be a joint effort between line manager and staff with clear

actions, roles of each party, time line and a monitoring process. Smith,

Hornsby & Shirmeyer’s (1997:13) research revealed that managers

prefer objective traditional approach whilst subordinates prefer

developmental collaborative approach.

6.6 It is very difficult to keep up with all the above as staff turnover is high in

the market. In order to ensure continuous consistency of the

performance appraisal philosophy understanding and implementation,

the above training must be incorporated into the induction package for all

new staff members.

148

REFERENCES

Bacal R. 1999. Performance Management. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bateman TS & Snell SA. 2002. Management: Competing in the New Era. 5th

ed. McGraw-Hill: Irwin.

Cook M. 1995. Performance appraisal and true performance. Journal of

Managerial Psycology, 10(7):3-7

City Press. 2005. Self evaluation for career path. City Press, 04 April:4.

DeNisi AS. 1996. Cognitive Approach to Performance Appraisal. Routledge,

London and New York.

Dessler G. 1988. Personnel Management. 4th ed. Prentice Hall.

Edmonstone J. 1996. Appraising the state of performance appraisal. Health

Manpower Management. 22(6):9-13

Fletcher C & Williams R. 1986. Performance Appraisals and Career

Development. Hutchinson Education.

Fletcher S. 1997. Analysing Competence. Kogan Page Limited.

Goodale JG. 1997. Seven ways to improve performance appraisals. Human

Resources Management, 77-80.

Greenhill RT. 1988. Performance Related Pay. Fitzwilliam Publishing Ltd.

Grobler PA, Warnich S, Carrell MR, Elbert NF & Hatfield RD. 2002. Human

Resource Management in South Africa. 2th ed. Thompson Learning.

149

Hartle F. 1995. How to reengineer your performance appraisal process.

London: Kogan Page.

Herbst FJ. 2003. Referencing in Academic Documents – Guidelines.

Johannesburg: Department of Business Management, Rand Afrikaans

University.

Herbst FJ. 2003. Guidelines for compiling the short dissertation.

Johannesburg: Department of Business Management, Rand Afrikaans

University.

Howell K & Cameron E. August 1996. The benefits of an outsider’s opinion.

People Management, 28-30.

Kreitner R & Kinicki A. 2001. Organizational Behavior. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill:

Irwin.

Laud RL. 1992. Performance Appraisal and its link to strategic management

development. Handbook of Management, 5(1):25-31.

Lawler EE & McDermont M. 2003. Current performance management

practices. World of work journal. 12(2):49-60

Mavis M. October 1994. Painless Performance Evaluation. Training &

Development, 48(10):40 – 44.

McAdams JL. 1996. The Reward Plan Advantage. 1st ed. HB Printing.

Molefe. GN. 2004. A support staff performance management model for a

selected tertiary institution in the Tshwane Metropolitan area. Unpublished

M.COM Dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University.

Orpen C. July 1994. Human Resources Management. Management

Appraisal: Can it be more effective? 10(6):26-28

150

Otte FL & Hutcheson PG. 1992. Helping employees manage careers.

Prentice-Hall Inc.

Sunday Times. 2004. How great managers manage people. Sunday Times,

29 August:11

Sunday Times. 2005. Ways to win over your employees – companies who are

keen on keeping their people need to look at how they are treating them.

Sunday Times, 20 March:11.

Smith BN, Hornsby JS & Shirmeyer R. March 1997. Current trends in

Performance Appraisal. An examination of Managerial Practices. SAM

Advance Management Journal, 10-15

Swanepoel BJ & Slabbert JA. 1998. Introduction to employment relations

management. Johannesburg: Juta.

The Star. 2004. Workplace – Edcon Group Case Study. The Star, 14

October:6

Wilson J & Cole G.June 1990. Personnel Management. A healthy approach

to performance appraisal. 46-49

Zikmund WG. 2003. Business Research Methods. 7th ed. Thompson

Learning.

151

ANNEXURES Annexure A : Sampling frame

Name Surname Position Division Start Date Name 1 Surname 1 Clerk, Legal CRDT: HL DURBAN 1995-08-28 Name 2 Surname 2 Officer, Credit Assurance CRDT: HL DURBAN 1998-10-01 Name 3 Surname 3 Manager, Home Loans Granting CRDT: HL DURBAN 1996-09-01 Name 4 Surname 4 Manager, Credit CRDT: HL DURBAN 1986-12-22 Name 5 Surname 5 Manager, Credit Assurance CRDT: HL DURBAN 2002-03-01 . . . . Name n-1 Surname n-1 Officer, Administration CRDT:HL ADMIN 2002-03-01 Name n Surname n Officer, Administration CRDT:HL ADMIN 1987-12-01

I

Annexure B : Questionnaire This questionnaire: Dissertation purposes.

Approximately 20 minutes to complete.

Has 32 Questions, please complete all questions.

The questionnaire has 3 sections namely:

Section A – Personal details (all respondents to fill) Section B – Employees with subordinates (fill only if you have a subordinate)

Section C – Performance Appraisal (all respondents to fill)

See Annexure: Annexure A - Non Managerial form

Annexure B - Managerial form

II

Please mark the appropriate box with an X SECTION A: PESONAL DETAILS

1) In which division are you currently employed?

A: RETAIL CREDIT B: FINANCE C: IT D:OTHER

2) What level is your current position?

A:

NON-

MANAGERIAL

B:

JNR

MANAGER

C:

MID

MANAGER

D:

SNR

MANAGER

E:

EXEC

LEVEL

F:

OTHER

LEVEL

3) How many years have you been with the organisation?

A:

2 – 4 years

B:

5 - 7 years

C:

8 - 10 years

D:

11–13years

D:

14+ years

F:

OTHER

4) How many years have you been in the current position?

A:

< 12months

A:

1-2 years

B:

3-4 years

C:

5-6 years

D:

7+ years

F:

OTHER

SECTION B: EMPLOYEES WITH SUBORDINATES

5) Do you always have enough time to prepare before discussions with your

subordinates?

A:

YES

B:

NO

If NO please elaborate. ………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6) How do you feel about appraising employees below you?

A:

Daunting

B:

Bad

experience

C:

Playing GOD

E:

Enjoy it

F:

Fulfilling

Please elaborate. ………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

III

7) How do you feel adequately trained to perform a PA discussion?

A:

Inadequate

B:

Partly

adequate

C:

Fully

adequate

Please elaborate …….…………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION C: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL (“PA”) C1: Preparation by employees

8) For your last PA session how much time were you given for preparation?

A:

<= 2days

B:

3-6 days

C:

1 week

D:

2-3 weeks

E:

4 weeks+

F:

None

9) Was the preparation time given adequate?

A:

Too short B:

Adequate

C:

More than

enough

D:

Not important

to me

10) Do you feel that your manager (who does your appraisal) has done adequate

preparation before the PA discussion with yourself?

A:

YES

B:

NO

C:

Not

relevant

Please motivate…….…………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… C2: Understanding of the PA system

11) Do you feel that your manager has been trained adequately to conduct a PA

discussion?

A:

YES

B:

NO

C:

Don’t Know

IV

12) Are the PA system measurement scales for Key Results Areas and Behavioural

Competencies easy to understand?

A:

Very difficult

B:

Difficult

C:

Somewhat easy

C:

Very easy

13) Do you fully understand the current PA system applied?

A:

Not at all

B:

Understand

somewhat

C:

Understand

mostly

14) Are you satisfied with the PA discussion between yourself and your manager?

A:

Very satisfied

B:

Satisfied

C:

Dissatisfied

D:

Very dissatisfied

15) How do you feel about user’s (manager & subordinate) ability to interpret

measurement scales and critical behaviours in the PA system?

A:

Open to subjectivity

B:

Very clear

C:

No comment

Please specify…………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… C3: Moderation process

16) In your understanding is the moderation done BEFORE or AFTER the PA discussion

between manager and employee?

A:

BEFORE

B:

AFTER

C:

BEFORE & AFTER

D:

DON’T KNOW

17) In your opinion is the moderation process fair?

A:

Not fair

B:

Partially fair

C:

Fair

Please motivate…………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………

V

C4: Discussion of the PA review

18) In your last appraisal discussion, how did your manager’s rating compare to yours?

A:

Better

B:

Worse

C:

Same

19) In your last appraisal discussion, did your manager ask you for your input?

A:

Yes

B:

No

20) In your last appraisal discussion, was your input used in giving the final rating?

A:

Yes

B:

No

C:

Don’t know

D:

Not asked for input

21) Does your manager substantiate his/her rating with specific incidents?

A:

ALWAYS

B:

SOMETIMES

C:

NEVER

22) In your last appraisal discussion, did the discussion focus on the following?

(Please answer all questions)

Performance YES NO

Behavioural Competencies YES NO

Development YES NO

C5: Outcome of the PA process

23) Briefly describe how you felt BEFORE your last PA discussion.

A:

Looking forward

to it

B:

Motivated

C:

Anxiety

D:

Down

E:

Scared

Provide reasons for this feeling………………………………………………………………………. ……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………….……………………………………………………………………………………

24) Briefly describe how you felt AFTER your last PA discussion.

A:

Angry

B:

Discouraged

C:

Down

D:

Neutral

E:

Motivated

Provide reasons for this feeling....…………………………………………………………….. ……………..……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………..………………………………………………………………………………………

VI

25) In your perception, what is the outcome of the PA discussion used for?

(Please answer all questions)

Career development YES NO

Salary review YES NO

Promotion YES NO

Bonus YES NO

Release/Exit YES NO

Don’t know YES NO

26) At your last PA discussion, do you know where in the 20/70/10 ranking your rating

placed you?

A:

YES

B:

NO

27) In your opinion, was your final rating and rank used to determine:

Salary YES NO

Bonus YES NO

Promotion YES NO

Not used al all YES NO

Please specify ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………..…

C6: Development Plan (“DP”)

28) How would you rate your DP in relation to your long-term (“LT”) career objectives?

A:

No DP

B:

Have DP – No match with LT career

objectives

C:

Have DP - Matches LT career

objectives

Please specify ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………..…

VII

VIII

29) Does the DP have actions and time frames?

Actions YES NO

Time frames YES NO

Please specify ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………..…

C7: Other

30) When are job expectations discussed between you and your manager?

During PA (mid year discussion) YES NO

During PA (end year discussion) YES NO

Beginning of each year YES NO

Beginning of each assignment YES NO

Please specify ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………..…

31) Other than the formal Mid Year and End Year PA sessions, do you receive informal

feedback during the year?

A:

Frequently

B:

Seldom

C:

Never

Please specify ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………..…

32) Please elaborate in general on what your perception is on the effective use of the

current performance appraisal system in the bank.

GENERAL COMMENTS

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

ANNEXURE C: Non Managerial PA forms

GENERAL STAFF PERFORMANCE REVIEW

RETAIL CREDIT

EMPLOYEE PERSONAL DETAILS:

e Surnam Initials Personnel Number Position Title Job Family Level IBT Business Unit NSTRUCTIONS: I The Performance Assessment has four parts:

IX

(i) A set of Principal Accountabilities (PA’s) (ii) Key Result Areas (KRAs) (iii) Critical Behaviours (CB’s) (iv) Future Development Planning

Please complete each part during the discussion with the appraisee and record the outcomes on the spreadsheet provided.

SECTION I PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABILITIES

Every position exists for a specific purpose. The purpose may be described by a set of Principal Accountabilities. These are the enduring deliverables for which a position holder is responsible. Usually, there are no more than seven Accountabilities. Please describe below those Principal Accountabilities associated with the position under review (principal accountabilities as per the current job description). These should be discussed and agreed with the employee so that he/she is quite clear about his/her accountabilities.

SECTION I PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABILITIES

1 2 3 4

X

5 SECTION II KEY RESULT AREAS (KRAS)

Identify and agree on the appraisee's Key Result Areas and write them into the space provided below. Agree a relative weighting per KRA and write this in the appropriate column (decimal ratings may be used). Assess actual performance by rating each KRA.

Rating Weight % KRA Description 1 2 3 4 5 Weight x Rating (unrounded)

1

2

3

4

5 10% Customer service

100% Unrounded KRA total

Notes: Weight must add to 100%.

XI

Score is calculated as Weight % X Rating divided by 100. Unrounded KRA total is calculated as the sum of the individual KRA scores.

Rating descriptors from previous years have been done away with and replaced with 1-5 scale where: 1 = Poor performance 5 = Outstanding performance.

SECTION III ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL BEHAVIOURS

This list contains criteria to assess how a role was performed. The appraiser is free to choose those items that represent HOW the role should be performed. Highlight the chosen behaviours by checking the "star" box. Where necessary appropriate items can be added to those provided. No limit to number of items chosen. Rate each behaviour numerically, decimals may be used.

Legend: Chosen Behaviour 1: Poor 2: Fair 3: Good 4: Excellent Thinking, Problem Solving, Innovation Score

1 Generates focused and practical solutions 2 Drives for simplifying and improving processes 3 Continually bears customer focused solutions in

mind 4 Questions sub-standard practices 5 Creative when faced with obstacles 6 Experiments and takes well-informed risks 7 Provides innovative solutions 8 Analyses problems thoroughly 9 Demonstrates sound judgement

10 Makes decisions quickly 11 Thinks proactively 12 Looks beyond the obvious answer 13 Thinks outside the box 14 Shows a quick mind Personal and Interpersonal Effectiveness

Score 1 Has a supportive, solution-seeking approach

XII



Legend: Chosen Behaviour 1: Poor 2: Fair 3: Good 4: Excellent 2 Works as part of a team and builds relationships 3 Challenges people while supporting them 4 Praises people for good work 5 Selects the best people and rewards them 6 Coaches and shapes performance 7 Manages poor performance 8 Motivates people and builds enthusiasm 9 Develops people

10 Celebrates successes 11 Contributes towards a positive working environment12 Values differences in others 13 Customer and service orientated 14 Shows respect for others 15 Provides support for others 16 Communicates and networks 17 Shows self confidence 18 Is realistic about his/her abilities 19 Demonstrates trustworthiness and integrity 20 Open to change 21 Deals effectively with ambiguity 22 Sensitive to others Motivation, Purpose, Drive

Score 1 Shows energy and drive 2 Focuses on delivering re lts su

XIII



Legend: Chosen Behaviour 1: Poor 2: Fair 3: Good 4: Excellent 3 Action and practical solution orientated 4 Learns and develops herself / himself 5 Shows commitment in the face of obstacles 6 Optimistic, even under adverse conditions 7 Motivates people to be goal directed 8 Enthusiastic about future possibilities 9 Willing to take responsibility

10 Willing to accept responsibility Overall Critical Behaviour Assessment rating:

XIV

Moderator: ____________________________ Date: ____________

I have seen the contents of my Performance Assessment and it was fully discussed with me.

I accept the contents as fair. I have made my comments in a separate statement which I have handed to my manager for attachment hereto.

Yes No

Yes No

Appraisee: ____________________________ Date: ____________

Appraiser: ____________________________ Date: ____________

XV

ANNEXURE D: Managerial PA forms

RETAIL CREDIT Managerial Review

EMPLOYEES PERSONAL DETAILS: Surname

Initials Personnel number Job Family Level

Area: IBT number

Current Position Title

XVI

EXPLANATION OF PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE: Performing below the required standards (B):

Performs below the required standards, needing constant supervision and often making mistakes. Although some of the required skills are present, application on the job is weak. Care of internal\external customers suffers, as the service provided is of a low standard. The contribution of the individual is deficient, with extensive formal, and on-the-job training as well as performance counselling necessary. Generally performing to most of the required standards (G): Meets most of the standards. Generally capable of performing at the desired level, but performance/provision of customer care may be inconsistent due to skills deficit and/or inability to apply skills/knowledge on the job. Formal and/or on-the-job training may be required to perform at the fully competent level. Performing at the fully competent level (F): Meets all of the standards. Has all the required skills and knowledge to perform the job independently and applies skills and knowledge to provide good levels of customer service consistently and reliably. Contribution is considerable and supervision is rarely required. Surpassing most of the required standards (S):

Surpasses most of the required standards. Apart from having all the required knowledge , skills and ability, also demonstrates a sustained commitment to excellent performance, providing well above average customer service by often putting in the extra effort. Rarely, if ever requires supervision, making very few errors and is expert in the job. Contribution to the team is constructive and the level of customer service provided by the whole team is enhanced by the individual's approach. Exemplifies the level of excellence to be aimed for in customer service. Performing at an outstanding level (O/S):

Consistently surpasses most of the standards. As well as producing an exceptionally high level of work, is able to function beyond the requirements of the job. Able to act as advisor to others, solving problems and providing coaching. Functions as an informal leader, using depth of knowledge and personal skill to encourage the improvement of performance/customer service delivered by the entire team.

XVII

PART A: APPRAISAL OF PAST PERFORMANCE Section 1: Appraisal of Key Result Areas (KRAs) - contributes 70% towards the overall performance rating. State the KRA, weight the importance of each KRA to the job, by filing in a percentage. For each KRA fill in a score (1-5) in the score column, multiply each KRA score by its weight and record this figure in the Weight X Score column. Add the scores in this last column to arrive at an unrounded total.

No. Weight Key Result Areas Standards/ Measures Score Weight X

Score 1 2 3 4 5 10% Customer Service

100% UNROUNDED TOTAL Example: Score Key: Weighting X Score = Score Performing below required standards (B) = Score 0 - 1.99

70% X 3.25 = 2.28 Generally performing to most of the required standards (G) = Score 2.00 - 2.99 30% X 4 = 1.20 Performing at the fully competent level (F) = Score 3.00 - 3.99

Unrounded Total = 3.48 Surpassing most of the required standards (S) = Score 4.00 - 4.99 Performing at an outstanding level (O/S) = Score 5

XVIII

Section 2: Appraisal of Behavioural Competencies - contributes 30% towards the overall performance rating. Evaluate the importance of each competency to the job by placing a tick in the critical box. Tick the scale descriptor box that best describes the appraisee's performance level for each competency,decimals may be used. Rating scale: 1 - Below Standard, 2 - Generally Performing, 3 - Fully Competent, 4 - Surpassing, 5 - Outstanding

Critical Competency Score Comments

Showing initiative

Problem solving

Decision making/applying

Displays business curiosity

Relationship building and networking

Negotiation

Self development

People management

Communication

Team effectiveness

Developing subordinates

Driving change

Planning

Overall Critical Behaviour Assessment Rating:

XIX

The overall rating comprises 70% of the unrounded KRA rating + 30% of the overall Critical behaviour assessment rating. Example:

Overall KRA rating (unrounded) = 3.50

Overall Critical Behaviour assessment rating= 3.00 3.50 X 70% = 2.45 3.00 X 30% = 0.90 ,

Overall unrounded rating = 3.35 Moderator:

ame

N Signature Date Appraiser: Comments: Name Signature Date Appraisee: Comments: Name Signature Date

XX

Tick as appropriate: I have seen the contents of my Review discussion form and it was fully discussed with me.

Yes No

I accept the contents as fair

Yes No

I have made my comments in a separate statement which will be submitted to the Human Resources Department.

Yes No

PART B: FUTURE PERFORMANCE GOALS Future Key Result Areas (KRAs)

No. Weight Key Result Area 1 …….% 2 …….% 3 …….% 4 …….% Customer Service 5 10%

100%

XXI

Annexure E: Organisations internal performance appraisal process

1 2 3

Preliminary Appraisal input

Ranking

8

Moderation panel

Reward

One-on-one discussions take place

4Changes flagged and applied

Anomalies raised, discussed and applied in need

Final Ranking

XXII 7 65

Moderation panel Ranking Preliminary Appraisal input

KEY MEASURESKey Result Areas Behavioural Competencies Skills assessment (training attended and NQF) Noteworthy events Potential Grid Retention of key staff Leadership (360 Degree appraisals) Staff Development (mentoring and coaching) Personal Development Innovation (projects) Branch audit and inspection reports/Compliance. Knowledge of the appraisee

Appraiser completes appraisal form and discusses individual appraisals with key Moderators.

XXIII

Changes made by the moderation panel are “flagged” and communicated by the HR representative to the relevant appraiser if the latter was not part of the moderation panel

Changes flagged and applied

One-on-one appraisal discussions. Changes made as a result of the appraisal discussions are communicated to HR per spreadsheet to be updated together with the previously “flagged” changes. Employee advised of ranking category.

One-on-one appraisal discussions take place


Final Ranking

XXIV

XXV

Reward

Final Ranking

Market position and performance. Current reward should be evaluated against the relevant market for the position under consideration and the performance of the incumbent.

Market vulnerability. It may in rare cases be justifiable to increase the reward eligibility of sound employees who will be difficult to replace or in respect of whom some other urgent retention imperative exists

Final ranking is provided to CMC to complete the reward review in line with ranking outcomes and guidelines provided as part of the annual reward review process.

General Staff Interim Appraisal Timelines


RankingModeration panel

Final Performance Ranking




14 – 18 June

21 – 28 June

20 - 23 July

29 June – 19 July26 – 30 July

XXVI

Managerial Staff Interim Appraisal Timelines


RankingModeration panel

Final Performance Ranking




26 – 30 July

2 – 13 Aug

26-27 Aug

16-26Aug30-3Sept

XXVII

Ranking

•Employees are compared to each other, and assigned a number that supposedly indicates whether they are more, similarly, or

less effective than their colleagues.

•Encourages managers to evaluate employees honestly, provide clearer distinctions between employees and promote a high-

performance culture.

•Formal ranking: 20:70:10.

•Moderation Panels to be used as objective measurements in performance ranking and as reward distribution panels for reward

ranking.

Moderation Guidelines – Retail Banking

OVERVIEW:

The purpose of moderation is to ensure that appraisal outcomes of individuals are aligned with the broader performance context of

their specific area/division/province and accurately reflects the overall performance of Retail Banking. The initial focus will be to

prepare sufficiently, using the ranking framework to contextualise, the comparative employee contribution and deliverables in

XXVIII

accordance with the overall outputs as represented in the business results. Additional factors as listed in the key measures can be

considered to ensure that a holistic view is taken in the final rankings as described in the moderation process phases.

MODERATION PROCESS

Phase 1 Appraiser completes appraisal form and discusses individual appraisals with key moderators (individual who will sign as moderator)

Phase 2 Excel spreadsheets with rankings captured by the relevant HR department

Phase 3 Moderation panel discuss and consider ranking outcomes in conjunction with appraisal input in accordance with roles and

responsibilities of the panel. HR practitioner presents “bell curve” data and moderation panel agrees to changes where applicable.

Phase 4 Changes made by the moderation panel need to be “flagged” and communicated by the HR representative to the relevant appraiser

if the latter was not part of the moderation panel.

XXIX

Phase 5 One-on-one appraisal discussions. Changes made as a result of the appraisal discussions need to be communicated to HR per

spreadsheet to be updated together with the previously “flagged” changes. Employee advised of ranking category.

Phase 6 Final ranking is provided to Career Management Committee to complete the reward review in line with ranking outcomes and

guidelines provided as part of the annual reward review process.

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MODERATION PANEL

• Reviews the appropriateness and consistency of the ratings and verify forms for correctness and completeness

• Encourages the elimination of excessive strictness, leniency, inconsistency and other biases, encouraging the full utilisation of

the rating scale.

• Consult with the appraiser (s) where opinions differ and reach consensus prior to appraisal discussion. Focus on preparation

and not prejudging outcomes.

ROLE OF THE HR PRACTIONER(FACILITATOR)

• Ensures that issues relating to dissatisfaction are followed up

• Provides guidance on performance related issues

• Plays a mediation role in difficult appraisal outcomes

• Makes management information available to assist with ongoing performance management

XXX