icoasl2011 shirley ingles cruz

8/7/2019 ICoASL2011 Shirley Ingles Cruz

1/20

ICoASL 2011: Branding & Marketing, &Strategic Direction, Best Practices & Performance Evaluation of

Special Library Services

The Relationship Between Performance Evaluation System and the

Level of Motivation of Librarians Working in Special Libraries:

The Philippine Experience

Shirley Ingles-Cruz

Head Librarian, Commission on Appointments, Congress of the Philippines

[email protected] , [email protected]

1.IntroductionIn an article published by the Special Library Association, the authors define special

libraries as those information organizations sponsored by private companies, government

agencies, not-for-profit organizations, or professional associations (Mount, 1999). It further

describes that in the introductory text special libraries include units within public and academic

libraries with subject specialties.

In another article that was published by McGill, stated that the nature of service provided in

special libraries differs from other types of libraries. It also stated that Librarians working in a

special libraries or the so called Special Librarians are immensely involved in activities

towards attainment of goals of the sponsoring, or 'parent' organization; thus they may be

involved in other activities that other libraries would not, such as conducting research (notjust conducting a search), writing reports or helping a top executive draft a speech.

On the other hand, Performance Evaluation System (PES) is defined as a system that

provides for identification of major and minor responsibilities of a job or position,

development of methods and procedures to appraise performance against established standards,

and use of appraisal information in making personnel decisions (CSC Memorandum, 1989).

The PES could have three possible uses in an organization. It can be used as a technique for

reviewing current performance; it may also serve as an aid to management planning process,

and finally; it is an important aid of promotion system. This study even tries to dig even

beyond that, and to establish the Special Librarians as source of motivation.

This study could be instrumental to further improve human resource management

specifically to those working in special libraries. Sometimes employer and employee tend to be

contented and stick to the existing management style and system without analyzing further thatthere are areas that need to be changed or modified. Thus, this paper could be instrumental in

analyzing further rooms for improvements and modifications of human resource management

specifically that of performance evaluation system. This paper might be a significant endeavor

that would likely help superiors or library managers and rank-and-file alike to look into matters

that would likely help them improve or modified or even change any endeavor or activity to

further enhanced job performance and productivity. Consequently, employees job

performance may be viewed as a form of feedback through performance appraisal.

An employees enthusiasm for job is closely connected with performance and how

information about the performance is being communicated. Performance appraisal is necessary


2/20



for monitoring the employees development, or lack of it. It provides an unbiased and

justifiable basis for promotion, salary increases, bonuses, and other organizational rewards.

Consequently, it may also be the basis for demotion and in worst cases termination from the

service.

Apparently, the studied group may have different performance evaluation system. However,

this paper aims to connect the differing performance evaluation system to the motivational

level of Librarians working in special libraries (Special Librarians).

2.Conceptual frameworkManagers in all types of organizations are continually faced with the fact that vast

differences exist in the performances of individual employees. Some employees always

perform at high levels, need little or no direction and appear to enjoy what they are doing.

Other employees perform only at marginal levels, require constant attention and direction, and

are often absent. The reasons for these differences in performance are varied and complex,

involving the nature of the job, the behavior of the manager, and the characteristics of theemployee. At the core of each of these aspects is motivation.

Motivation is the processes that account for an individuals intensity, direction, and

persistence of effort toward achieving a goal (Basic Motivation Concept)

Intensity = how hard an employee tries

Direction = should benefit the organization (i.e. quality of effort counts!)

Persistence = how long can an employee maintain his/hereffort

Motivation is not directly observable (it is internal to each employee), and is personal (what

is arousing differs and how behavior is directed is often different), however the process is

common and it is goal directed.iIt is something that causes a person to behave in a certain

way. Positive motivational factors include rewards such as salary, interesting work, and

dedication to the companys success. (Davis & Weckler, 1996)

The Expectancy Theory of Motivation by Victor Vroom has become a commonly acceptedtheory for explaining how individuals make decisions regarding various behavioral

alternatives. It offers the following propositions (QuickMBA):

When deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the

greatest motivation forces.

The motivational force (MF) for a behavior, action, or task is a function of three

distinct perceptions: Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence.

As equated, motivational force is the product of the three perceptions, if any one of their

values is zero, the whole equation becomes zero.

MF = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence

Certainly, an individual will act in a certain way based on the expectation that the act will be

followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual. Like

for instance,

Expectancy = Effort --> performance linkages

How hard will I work?

Instrumentality = Performance --> reward linkages

What is the reward?

Valence = Reward--> goal

How attractive is the reward?For a simplified presentation, see Figure 1.

Individual

Effort

Individual

Performance

Organizational

Rewards

Individual

Goals


3/20



Figure 1. Expectancy Theory

As illustrated in Figure 1, an employee exerts effort if there is something to look forward to,

something that motivates them to do something. Simply to say that, the strength of the

employees motivation (effort) depends on how strongly the employee believes he/she can

achieve this goal (performance), whether he/she will be adequately rewarded (reward) and if

so, whether the reward will satisfy his/her own goal (individual goal).

For an effort to lead to a good performance, the employee must first perform. Individual job

performance is influenced by the performance evaluation system, since it measures his/her

ability to perform the job. The outcome of such performance evaluation, which is the

performance rating, could be an influential factor towards gaining rewards and eventually

achievement of individual goal. This is illustrated in figure 2.

Figure 2. Conceptual Design

Using the Expectancy Theory, the researcher would like to find out its possible effect or any

significant relationship to the level of motivation of the sample group. On the conceptual level,

the individual effort refers to the Librarians effort, and individual performance will be referred

to as Librarians job performance. Organizational rewards may be specified as salary, fringe

benefits, and promotion, while an individual goal may be referred as the Librarians own goal

job competencies, improved library services, & personal goal.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

Performance Evaluation System

IndividualEffort

IndividualPerformanc

OrganizationalRewards

IndividualGoal

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Level of Motivation

(Expectancy theory)


4/20



Figure 3. Conceptual Framework

Looking into the Conceptual Framework, the independent variable is the PES; of which,

considered were the PES criteria and the performance rating which were constant. The

independent variable is unalterable; therefore, the dependent variable could not affect this

variable.

On the other hand the dependent variable was the level of motivation of the Special

Librarians. The conceptual framework illustrated how the performance enhancement system

could affect the level of motivation of the Special Librarians.

The independent variable and the dependent variables are of asymmetrical relationship

where in the former may have a direct effect on the later, but the later variable cannot have the

same effect on the former.

3.Statement of the problemThis study aims to find out the relationship between the performance enhancement system

(PES) and the level of motivation of Librarians working in special libraries.It specifically aims to find out about the following problems:

1. What is the level of awareness of the librarians on their performance evaluation?

2. What is the perception of the librarians about the performance appraisal?

3. Are the librarians informed of the results of their performance evaluation?

4. What is the level of motivation of the librarians?

5. Is there a significant relationship between the performance rating and the level of

motivation of the librarians?6. Is there a significant relationship between the PES criteria and the level of

motivation of the librarians?The study will be proved using the one-shot survey method which is limited only among the

2010 Executive Board of the Association of Special Libraries of the Philippines, (ASLP) Inc.

Though the number of respondents was limited, results were tabulated and analyzed using

qualitative and quantitative methods.

In further proving the relationships between the independent and dependent variables, the

Spearmans Rank Correlation Test was used as a statistical tool for proving on the relationship

of the dependent and independent variables.

The study was basically an explanatory social survey research. The researcher not only

explained the causal relationships between the new PES and the level of motivation but tried

also to explain why such relationship or effect occurred.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

Performance Enhancement System

PES Criteria

Performance Rating

Librarians

effort

Librarians job

performance

Salary increase,

fringe benefits,

& promotions

Job competencies,

improved library

services & personal goal

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Level of Motivation of the CA Secretariat Employees

(Expectancy Theory)


5/20



4. AnalysisThe researcher distributed the survey questionnaires to fifteen (15) respondents who were

among the 2010 Executive Board of the ASLP. The questionnaire was divided into two parts.Part I was on performance appraisal and Part II was on motivation.

4.1. Performance Appraisal

The first part was about the perception of the Special Librarians on performance appraisal.

There were six questions in this part. The first item was to measure the level of awareness of

the Librarians regarding the existence of performance appraisal.

As the result shown in Table I, a great majority (86.6%) of the respondents were very much

aware that they are being apprised of their performance and only 6.67% of them were slightly

aware and 6.67% is only aware that they are being apprised of their performance. It is assumed

from the results that there is awareness among the respondents of job performance appraisal.

Table 1. Employees level of awareness on performance appraisal

Base: No. of Respondents (N=15) Frequency Percentage (%)

Very Aware 13 86.67%

Slightly Aware 1 6.67%

Aware 1 6.67%

Not Aware

In line with the first item, the researcher then asked how the respondents perceived the

importance of performance appraisal. 86.67% of them perceived it to be very important,

13.33% said that it was important, and 6.67% preferred not to answer. Needless to say, that

performance appraisal is of importance (Table 2).

Table 2. Perceived importance of performance appraisal


Very Important 12 80%

Slightly Important

Important 2 13.33%

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Slightly Unimportant

Unimportant

No answer 1 6.67%

Evidently, everybody perceived PES positively (Table 3)

Table 3. Employees perception of PES


Positive Feedback 15 100%

Negative Feedback


6/20



Majority (80%) was showed their performance result or performance rating and 20%

was not shown of their performance results (Table 4).

Table 4. Performance results shown to respondents


Yes 12 80%

No 3 20%

Table 5 is about the effect of performance evaluation results on employees job

performance. 60% said that their job performance is greatly affected by performance

evaluation results; 13.33% was slightly affected; 20% said that their job performance was not

affected by performance evaluation results; and 6.67% preferred not to answer.

Table 5. Effect of evaluation result on job performance


Greatly Affects 9 60%

Slightly Affects 2 13.33%

Does not Affect 3 20%

No answer 1 6.67%

Table 6 indicates that c only 13.33% was rated outstanding and majority (80%) was

rated as very satisfactory. 6.67% preferred not to answer.

Table 6: Performance rating during the last rating period


Outstanding 2 13.33%

Very Satisfactory 12 80%

Satisfactory - -

Failed - -

Unsatisfactory - -

No answer 1 6.67%

4.2. Motivation

The second part of the survey was on motivation. There were about eleven (11) questions in

this part. Ten (10) of these questions were answered as Highly Motivated, Slightly Motivated,

and Not Motivated to measure the employees level of motivation.

The first item under the motivation part, the researcher asked the respondents how

motivated were they about the PES criteria of their respective organizations. 86.67% responded

that they had been highly motivated of their PES criteria and 13.33% responded that they had

not been motivated to perform. (Table 7).

Table 7. Employees level of motivation based on PES Criteria

Base: No. of Respondents (N=15) Frequency Percentage


7/20



(%)

Highly Motivated 13 86.67%

Slightly Motivated

Not Motivated 2 13.33%

The next item under the motivation part, the researcher asked the respondents how they had

performed when they had seen the results of their evaluation. 86.67 % responded that they had

been highly motivated to perform. 13.335% among the respondents had not been motivated to

perform (Table 8).

Table 8. Employees level of motivation after being shown their evaluation results

Base: No. of Respondents (N=15) FrequencyPercentage

(%)


Slightly MotivatedNot Motivated 2 13.33%

The effect on the respondents if the results of the evaluation were positive. The result was

either highly motivated or not motivated. 86.67% of the respondents answered that they had

been highly motivated while 6.67% answered that they had not been motivated. However,

6.67% also preferred not to answer the question (Table 9).

Table 9. Employees level of motivation if evaluation results are positive

Base: No. of Respondents (N=15) FrequencyPercentage

(%)

Highly Motivated 13 86.67&

Slightly Motivated


No answer 1 6.67%

The questionnaire also probed on the effect on respondents if the evaluations results were

negative. 73.33% of the respondents said that they had still been highly motivated; 13.33%

said that they had been slightly motivated if the results turned out to be negative; 6.67% said to

be not motivated at all; and 6.67% preferred not to answer the question this could either

mean that negative results had no effect on the respondents or not sure if it has effect in any

ways (Table 10).

Table 10. Employees level of motivation if evaluation results are negative



Slightly Motivated 2 13.33%


No answer 1 6.67%

In order to obtain informationon what motivated the respondents several questions were

incorporated in the questionnaire. These were directly asked to the respondents on how the


8/20



PES criteria, salary increases, fringe benefits, promotion, and goals in life had motivated them

to perform. The tables 11- 14 elaborate these in detail.

Table 11 showed the effects of salary increase to respondents motivation. Nine out of

fifteen (60%) respondents said that salary increase had highly motivated them to perform intheir jobs. 6.67% said that the salary increase slightly motivated them to perform in their jobs.

6.67% said that the salary increase had not motivated them to perform in their jobs and 26.67%

preferred not to answer the question. However, according to the table no. 11, 60 % indicated

that salary rise motivated them to perform further better in their jobs.

Table 11. Employees level of motivation with salary increase


Highly Motivated 9 60%



No answer 4 26.67%

Fringe benefits to some were really a great motivator for employees to perform better in

their workplace. For this instance, 60% respondents said that fringe benefits had highly

motivated them to perform their jobs. 6.67% said that the salary increase slightly motivated

them to perform their jobs. 6.67% said that the salary increase had not motivated them to

perform their jobs and 26.67% prefer not to answer the question. Somehow, salary increase

highly motivated the respondents to perform.

Table 12. Employees level of motivation with fringe benefits





No Answer 4 26.67%

Money and recognition are the two most common ways an organization can reward their

employees. Promotion is the most common recognition conferred by an organization. Even in

instances when a promotion doesnt involve monetary reward, it is still an effective form of

recognition because it conferred upon the employee a new title and enhanced the employees

stature among his peers. For instance take the case of this study. As shown in Table 13,

73.33% of the respondents said that promotion highly motivated them to perform their jobs.

6.67% said that promotion slightly motivated them to perform their jobs. 6.67% said that thepromotion had not motivated them at all and 13.337% preferred not to answer the question.

Table 13. Employees level of motivation regarding promotion





No Answer 2 13.33%


9/20



A goal is simply a desired result that which an action is directed. It is something that one

wants to achieve. For instance, in this study, the level of motivation of the respondents towards

improving job competencies was 86.67% were highly motivated and only 13.33% were

slightly motivated (Table 14).

Table 14. Employees level of motivation with improving job competencies




Not Motivated

The level of motivation of the respondents towards improving library service was 86.67%

were highly motivated; only 6.67% were slightly motivated and 6.67% prefer not to answer the

question (Table 15).

Table 15. Employees level of motivation with improved library services




Not Motivated

No Answer 1 6.67%

In this study, the level of motivation of the respondents towards achieving ones goal in life

suggested that only 40% were highly motivated and 60% preferred not to answer the question.

(Table 16). Needless to say that still, not majority of the respondents were highly motivated

towards achieving ones goal in life.

Table16. Employees level of motivation with ones goal in life



Slightly Motivated

Not Motivated

No Answer 9 60%

How do respondents react if the evaluation results are positive? Do they lie-low in

their performance? Only 6.67% among the respondents had lie-low in job performance,while the 86.67%) answered that they did not lie-low in their performance, and 6.67%

preferred not to answer (Table 17)

Table 17. Employees lie-low on their performance if evaluation results are positive


Yes 1 6.67%

No 13 86.67%

No Answer 1 6.67%


10/20



4.2.1. Level of Motivation: Tables 18 to 20 had established comparative results on the level of

motivation of the respondents.

Table 18 showed the probability that there was indeed a great effort among the respondents

to do their job. As a result, 83.33% of the respondents had been highly motivated to performtheir job and only 10% had not been motivated to perform. Consequently, it was only a margin

of 3.33% both for those who had been slightly motivated and preferred not to answer some of

the question. It is shown in this study that, of the three (3) levels of motivation in the

expectancy theory, it is job performance that significantly motivates the respondents the most.

Table 18. Job performance

MOTIVATORS LEVEL OF MOTIVATION

Highly

Motivated

Slightly

Motivated

Not

MotivatedNo Answer

PES Criteria 11 2 1 1

Shown result 13 2Positive result 13 2

Negative result 13 1 1

Total 50 2 6 2

Ratio 12.5 .5 1.5 .5

Percentage 83.33% 3.33% 10% 3.33%

Consequently, Table 19 showed a decrease in the level of motivation as compared to the

motivation put forth by the respondents to perform their jobs (Table 18). Thus, to say that

organizational rewards ranks third (3rd

) among the levels of motivation. It yielded 64.46% of

the respondents had been highly motivated; 6.67% had been slightly motivated; 13.33% had

not been motivated; and 15.55% preferred not to answer most of the questions.

Table 19. Organizational rewards


Highly

Motivated

Slightly

Motivated

Not

MotivatedNo Answer

Salary Increase 9 1 1 3

Fringe Benefits 9 1 1 3

Promotion 11 1 1 1

Total 29 3 6 35

Ratio 6.2 .6 1.2 7

Percentage 64.46% 6.67% 13.33% 15.55%

Next to job performance (Table 18), it is goals in life that has the higher level of motivation

(Table 20). This study showed that 71.11% of the respondents had been highly motivated

towards attainment of individual goals in life; only 6.67% said that they had been slightly

motivated. However, 22.22% preferred not to answer some of the question.

Table 20. Goals in life


Highly Slightly Not No Answer


11/20



Motivated Motivated Motivated

Improving jobcompetencies

13 2

Improvinglibrary services 13 1 1

Personal goals 6 9

Total 32 3 0 10

Ratio 10.66 1 0 3.33

Percentage 71.11% 6.67% 0% 22.22%

Summarizing the survey results on motivation Table 21 clearly suggested that as far

motivation is concerned the respondents behavior were still highly motivated to do job related

actions. The level of motivation of the respondents accounted for 74% highly motivated,

5.33% slightly motivated, 6% not motivated, and 14.67% preferred not to answer most of the

questions. Table 21 clearly suggests that the reason behind the high motivation of the

respondents is due to motivation to perform their jobs and the attainment of goals in life.

Table 21. Summary of respondents' level of motivation


Highly

Motivated

Slightly

Motivated

Not

MotivatedNo Answer

Jobperformance

PES Criteria 11 2 1 1

Shown result 13 2

Positive result 13 2

Negative result 13 1 1

Organizational

Rewards

Salary Increase 9 1 1 4

Fringe Benefits 9 1 1 4

Promotion 11 1 1 2

Goals in Life

Improving job

competencies13 2

Improving library

services13 1 1

Personal goals 6 9

Total 111 8 9 22

Ratio 11.1 .8 .9 2.2

Percentile 74% 5.33% 6% 14.67%

4.2.2. Proving on the Relationships of the Variables: To prove the relationships of the

independent variable (PES) and the dependent variable (Motivation), the researcher utilized the

Spearmans rank correlation test. This type of statistical analysis is used by researchers when

the variables are ordinal. In this present study, both the dependent and independent variables

are ordinal. The researcher utilized this type of statistical test to find out if there is a significant

relationship among the variables.


12/20



Spearmans Rank Correlation Test:

rs = 1-

6 d

n(n-1)

Table 22 illustrates the relationship between the performance rating and the respondents

level of motivation. It is on the premise that the higher the performance rating, the higher the

motivation for job performance. The researcher considered the data on the effects of

performance evaluation results and actual ratings correlated to the respondents level of

motivation if the result of the evaluation is either positive or negative.

Premise: The higher the performance rating, the higher the motivation for job

performance.

Hypothesis:

Ho = There is no significant relationship between performance rating andmotivation (rs = 0)

Ha = There is a significant relationship between performance rating and

motivation (rs > rt)

Given: n = 15 = .05 r = .738Reject Ho: If the absolute value of computed r (rs) is greater than the table

r (rt): /rs / > /rt / or /rs/ > .738

Table 22.1 Relationship between effect of performance evaluation result and motivation if the

evaluation result is positive

X

(EvaluationResult)

Y

(PositiveResult)

Rx Ry d d

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

GA HM 5 7 -2 4

SA HM 10.5 7 3.5 12.25

SA HM 10.5 7 3.5 12.25DA HM 13 7 6 36

DA HM 13 7 6 36

DA NM 13 14.5 -1.5 2.25

NA NA 15 14.5 .5 .25

0 144

Computation:

rs = 1-6 d

n(n-1)


13/20



= 1-6(144)

15(15-1)

= 1-864

15(225-1)

= 1-864

3,360

= 1 - .2571

rs = .7429

Finding: rs = .7429 (computed value) is greater than rt =.738 (table value).

There is a significant relationship between Performance Evaluation Result and Level

of Motivation if the evaluation result is Positive

Table 22.2 Relationship between the effect of performance evaluation result and motivation ifthe evaluation result is negative

X

(Evaluation

Result)

Y

(Negative

Result)

Rx Ry d d

GA HM 5 6.5 -1.5 2.25

GA HM 5 6.5 -1.5 2.25

GA HM 5 6.5

-1.5er1)the

questions.

answer

responden

ts

accounted

for 74%

highly

motivated,

me of the

question.

oals in

life; only

6.67%

said

2.25

GA HM 5 6.5 -1.5 2.25

GA HM 5 6.5 -1.5 2.25

GA HM 5 6.5 -1.5 2.25

GA HM 5 6.5 -1.5 2.25

GA HM 5 6.5 -1.5 2.25

GA SM 5 13.5 -8.5 72.25

SA HM 10.5 6.5 4 16


14/20



SA HM 10.5 6.5 4 16

DA HM 13 6.5 6.5 42.25

DA SM 13 13.5 -.5 .25

DA NM 13 15 -2 4NA HM 15 6.5 8.5 72.25

0 241

Computation:

rs = 1-

6 d

n(n-1)

= 1-

6(241)

15(15-1)

= 1-1,446

15(225-1)

= 1-1,446

3,360

= 1 - .4304

rs = .5696

Finding: rs = .5696 (computed value) is less than rt =.738 (table value).

As established by the statistical tool used, there is no significant relationship betweenPerformance Evaluation Result and Level of Motivation if the evaluation result is Negative.

Table 22.3 Relationship between performance rating and motivation if the evaluation result is

positive

X

(Performance

Rating)

Y

(Positive

Result)

Rx Ry d d

O HM 1.5 7 -5.5 30.25

O HM 1.5 7 -5.5 30.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25

VS HM 8.5 7 1.5 2.25


15/20



VS NM 8.5 14 -5.5 30.25

NA NA 15 15 0 0

0 115.5

Computation:

rs = 1-6 d

n(n-1)

= 1-6(115.5)

15(15-1)

= 1-693

15(225-1)

= 1-693

3,360

= 1 - .2062

rs = .7938

Finding: rs = .7938 (computed value) is greater than rt =.738 (table value).

As established by the statistical tool used, there is significant relationship between

Performance Rating and Level of Motivation if the evaluation result is Positive.

Table 22.4 Relationship between performance rating and motivation if the evaluation result is

negative

X

(Performance

Rating)

Y

(Negative

Result)

Rx Ry d d

O HM 1.5 6.5 -5 25

O HM 1.5 6.5 -5 25

VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4

VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4

VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4

VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4

VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4

VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4

VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4

VS HM 8.5 6.5 2 4

VS SM 8.5 13.5 -5 25

VS SM 8.5 13.5 -5 25

VS NM 8.5 15 -6.5 42.25

NA HM 15 6.5 8.5 72.25

0 250.5


16/20



Computation:

rs = 1-6 d

n(n-1)

= 1-6(250.5)

15(15-1)

= 1-1,503

15(225-1)

= 1-

1,503

3,360

= 1 - .4473

rs = .5527

Finding: rs = .5527 (computed value) is less than rt =.738 (table value).

As established by the statistical tool used, there is no significant relationship between

Performance Rating and Level of Motivation if the evaluation result is Negative.

Table 23 illustrates the relationship between the PES criteria and the level of motivation of

the Librarians working in special libraries.Hypothesis:

Ho = There is no significant relationship between PES criteria and

motivation (rs = 0)

Ha = There is a significant relationship between PES criteria and motivation

(rs > rt)

Given: n = 15 = .05 r = .738

Reject Ho: If the absolute value of computed r (rs) is greater than the table

r (rt):/rs / > /rt / or /rs/ > .738

Table 23.1 Relationship of PES criteria and level of motivation if the evaluation result is

positive

X

(PES

Criteria)

Y

(Positive Result)Rx Ry d d

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0

HM HM 7 7 0 0


17/20



HM HM 7 7 0 0

NM NM 14.5 14 .5 .25

NM NA 14.5 15 -.5 .25

0 .50

Computation:

rs = 1-6 d

n(n-1)

= 1-6(.50)

15(15-1)

= 1-3

15(225-1)

= 1-

3

3,360

= 1 - .0009

rs = .9991

Finding: rs = .9991 which is greater than rt =.738 (table value).

Based on the statistical tool used, there is a significant relationship between

the PES criteria and Level of Motivation if the result of evaluation is Positive

Table 23.2 Relationship of PES criteria and level of motivation if the evaluation result is

negative

X

(PES

Criteria)

Y

(Negative

Result)

Rx Ry d d

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM HM 7 6.5 .5 .25

HM SM 7 13.5 -6.5 42.25

HM SM 7 13.5 -6.5 42.25

NM HM 14.5 6.5 8 64

NM NM 14.5 15 -.5 .25

0 151.75


18/20



Computation:

rs = 1-6 d

n(n-1)

= 1-6 (151.75)

15(15-1)

= 1-910.5

15(225-1)

= 1-

910.5

3,360

= 1 - .2710rs = .7290

Finding: rs = .7290 which is less than rt = .738 (table value).

Based on the statistical tool used, there is no significant relationship between the PES

criteria and Level of Motivation if the result of evaluation is Negative

5.ConclusionIn this study the researcher was able to ascertain that the Librarians were aware of

performance appraisal and it was perceived as very important in appraising their jobperformance.

The researcher was also able to ascertain that the level of motivation of the Special

Librarians had still been favorable after being shown their evaluation results. However,

through the use of the Spearmans rank correlation test, the researcher was able to establish

that there is a significant relationship between Performance Evaluation Result and Level of

Motivation only if the evaluation result is Positive. On the contrary there had been no

significant relationship between performance evaluation result and level of motivation of the

Special Librarians if the evaluation result is negative.

It was clearly established that as far motivation is concerned the Librarians behavior was

still highly motivated to do certain actions towards accomplishing tasks. It was also established

that the reason behind the high motivation of the respondents is due to motivation to perform

their jobs and the attainment of goals in lifeThere had been a favorable response from the Special Librarians regarding the PES;

consequently, it was much of a motivator. Also, through the use of the same statistical test, the

researcher was able to establish that there is significant relationship between Performance

Rating and Level of Motivation if the evaluation result is Positive. On the contrary there had

been no significant relationship between performance rating and level of motivation of the

Special Librarians if the evaluation result is negative.

Generally, the Special Librarians were motivated to perform. However, the study was able

to establish that the PES criteria had a significant relationship on the level of motivation of the


19/20



Special Librarians only if the evaluation result is positive. However, PES criteria have no

effect on the level of motivation of the Special Librarians if the evaluation result is negative.

It was also established that great effort were exerted towards job performance.

Consequently, job performance and ones goal in life had highly motivated the SpecialLibrarians to perform even better. Although, Librarians performed very satisfactory yet, they

had never lie-low in their job performance.

Evidently, recognition like promotion is comparably more efficient than monetary rewards.

It is presumed that an effective performance evaluation system requires an effective rewards

system. It all boils down to one significant idea that is, the best way to motivate the employees

is to recognize them. In whatever form or way it may be, as long as good contribution to the

organization is being recognized, it would surely boost employees morale to perform their job

even better that will consequently lead towards achieving their goals in life.

6.References1. Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circulars series of 1989

2. Davis, Margaret R. and David A. Weckler. A Practical Guide to OrganizationalDesign. U.S.: Crisp Pub., 1996

3. Gatewood, Robert D. et. Management: Comprehension, Analysis, and Application.Irwin, 1995

4. Kennard, Christie . Peak Performance. U.S.: National Press Pub., 1992

5. Mallory, Charles. Team, Building. U.S.: National Press Pub., 1991

6. Mount, Ellis and Rene Massoud. Special Libraries and Information Centers: AnIntroductory Text. Washington, DC, USA: Special Libraries Association, 1999.

7. About Special Libraries and the SLA. http://www.mcgill.ca/sis-students/sla/speclibs/

8. Basic Motivation Concept. http://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/sablynskic/ch6.htm

9. Does performance appraisal contribute to heightened levels of burned out?http://www.ipma-hr.org/newsfiles/2001_2_gabris.pdf

10.Gary Schumacher. Perception of the Impact of a Standard-based Teacher EvaluationSystem, Based on the Danielson Framework for Teaching Model, on Teaching andStudent Learning. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin Madison Department ofEducational Administration.http://www.soemadison.wisc.edu/elpa/academics/DissertationAbstracts /Completed/04SpringSchumacher.doc

11.Miele, Frank. Transition to Management for the Economic DevelopmentPractitioner. http://www.ecdevjournal.com/pubs/1989/art009_89.htm (Accessed on09 August 2005)

12.Pay for Performance. http://www.eridlc.com/onlinetextbook/chpt17/text_main.htm

13.Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case study.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3779/is_200207/ai_n9111715

14.Public Employee Performance Evaluation System.http://www.dep.state.fl.us/admin/forms/ Personnel_Forms/DEP_54-219.doc

15.QuickMB Management. Expectancy Theory.http://www.quickmba.com/mgmt/expectancy-theory/

16.The Expectancy-Valence Model of Motivation Revisited.


20/20



http://www.traveldailynews.gr/ makeof2.asp?subpage_id=699

icoasl2011 shirley ingles cruz

Documents