Satisfaction With Performance Appraisal System As A Tool To Enhance Employee Outcome

Major Research Project
On
Satisfaction With Performance Appraisal System As A Tool

To Enhance Employee Outcome
Towards Partial Fulfilment of Requirements of
Master of Business Administration Degree
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Avani Sharma
Prestige Institute of
Management & Research, Vani Gangil
Gwalior
MBA 3rd D
LASS MBA 4thSem.

DECLARATION
We, Avani Sharma and Vani Gangil, students of MBA III Semester of Prestige Institute of
Management& Research, Gwalior, hereby declare that the Major Research Project synopsis
report titled “Satisfaction With Performance Appraisal System As A Tool To Enhance
Employee Outcome” is submitted by us in the line of partial fulfillment of course objectives for
the Masters of Business Administration Degree.
We assure that this report is the result of our own efforts and that any other institute for the
award of any degree or diploma has not submitted it.
Date: Avani Sharma
Place: Vani Gangil

MBA 3rd D
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Avani Sharma and Vani Gangil of MBA Semester – III, of Prestige
Institute of Management and Research, Gwalior have successfully completed their Major
Research Project Report. They have prepared this report entitled “Satisfaction With
Performance Appraisal System As A Tool To Enhance Employee Outcome” under my direct
supervision and guidance.
Dr. Gaurav Jaiswal

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We, Avani Sharma and Vani Gangil express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Gaurav Jaiswal
giving us the opportunity to work under her guidance on the report entitled “Satisfaction With
Performance Appraisal System As A Tool To Enhance Employee Outcome”.
We are grateful to the Director of the Institute Dr. Swarup Mohanty, MRP Coordinator Dr.
Pranshuman Parashar and MRP Co-coordinator Asst. Prof Brahmmanand Sharma for their
valuable suggestions in the execution of report preparation.
We are also thankful to other faculty and staff members that guided and helped us very kindly at
each and every step whenever we required.
We also acknowledge & convey thanks to the library staff, computer department of PIMRG for
their kind and valuable support.
Avani Sharma
Vani Gangil
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................. 1

1.1 Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Objectives Of The Study .................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 Research Methodology ............................ 9

2.1 The Study: ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.2 The Sample Design: ......................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Tools which were used for Data Collection: .................................................................... 10
2.4 Tools which were used for Data Analysis:....................................................................... 10
Chapter 3 ................................................................ 11
3.1 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Conclusion and Summary ................................................................................................ 24
3.3 Implications and Suggestions ........................................................................................... 25
References .............................................................. 26
Annexure ................................................................ 27
Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1
Performance appraisal is a systematic examination of employee performance so that they can
comprehend all of a person's abilities, as well as their development, progress, and productivity in
relation to specified criteria and organisational objectives. It is part of the performance
management system. It is essential in order to clearly define both individual and team duties in
the form of KRA (key Result Area) and to create mutual understanding between them, as well as
to permit and facilitate employee development through a competent performance management
system. The act of satisfying a need or want, or the feeling derived from such fulfilment, is
known as satisfaction. It is the pleasure you get when you accomplish something or receive
something that you desired. The degree to which an individual feels satisfied or dissatisfied with
their job is referred to as job satisfaction. Any organization's workforce should be happy with
their work. Otherwise, the employee will become frustrated, which will negatively impact the
organization's performance. Salary, work, work culture, superior's attitude, intended
organisational policies, family problems, and industrial relations are all elements that contribute
to job happiness.
Performance appraisal is an important part of the human resource management system because it
allows managers to assess and measure employee performance in order to meet organisational
goals. Several previous studies have found that an effective performance appraisal system is an
important component of an organization's human resource management. Furthermore, previous
research on this topic has focused on observational features, with little attention paid to empirical
findings of satisfaction with the Performance Appraisal System as a Tool to Improve Employee
Outcome.
Employees’ performance is determined by a number of factors like work performance,

perception, effective commitment turnover intention and Performance appraisals effecting
employee’s performance.
Byers and Rue (2000) define performance appraisal (PA) as the process of determining and
conveying to employees how they are performing on the job, with the goal of formulating a plan
of improvement. These definitions show that if a performance appraisal system (PAS) is
implemented successfully in an organisation, employees will be able to understand how well
they are performing and what is expected of them in terms of effort and task direction in the
2
future, thanks to a well-defined plan for performance improvement. Performance appraisal is a
great method for analysing and evaluating employee competence and potential in general.
Identifying what will be measured is the first stage in the performance appraisal process. This
method appears straightforward at first appearance, but it can be extremely complicated in
practice. Employee morale is likely to suffer if an important component is missing, because
employees who perform well on that dimension will not be acknowledged or rewarded.
Employees may regard the entire appraisal process as useless if an irrelevant or small factor is
included, he continues.
Measuring employee performance is the second stage in the performance appraisal process. A
number is assigned to indicate an employee's performance on the stated traits or dimensions in
this process.
Managing performance is the third stage in the performance appraisal process. More than formal
reporting and annual ratings are required for effective management of human performance in
businesses.
In addition to formal face-to-face interviews, a comprehensive appraisal process involves casual

day-to-day interaction between managers and employees. Employee attitudes, habits, and
company productivity would all benefit from a good PA. For example, the PA's capacity to
reflect, measure, and evaluate an individual employee's conduct results in greater employee
performance and productivity. These good outcomes are a function of the employees' perceptions
of the overall effectiveness of the PA over time.
The effects of P.A are generally used to
 Measure the overall employee’s effectiveness in doing particular job.

 Find strengths and weaknesses in job knowledge and skills.
 Determine whether the responsibilities of employees can be expanded.
 Identify the needs of future training and development.
 Evaluate progression towards goals and objectives.
 Determine eagerness of career advancement.
 Motivate and guide growth and development.
3
1.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The independent variable in this study is Performance Appraisal Satisfaction, whereas the
dependent variable is Employee Outcome, which includes work performance, turnover intention,
effective commitment, and perception as sub factors.
1.1.1 Work Performance
There are two ways to define work performance. Work performance is viewed as a result or
consequence of action in the first definition. Work performance can be described in this context
as the completion of assigned duties. Aguinis (2007) defines performance as an employee's
distinctive conduct. It refers to what employees perform rather than what they create or the
results of their job. Work performance, according to Honiball (2008), is the action or behaviour
that is relevant to attaining an organization's goals (what is actually done). Employees who
believe that the company is attempting to meet their needs may feel a feeling of obligation to
contribute to the company through strong work performance.
Work is completed. Work performance can be defined in two ways. In the first definition, work
performance is considered as a result or consequence of action. In this context, work
performance might be defined as the accomplishment of assigned tasks. According to Aguinis
(2007), performance is defined as an employee's distinct behaviour. It refers to what employees
do instead of what they produce or the outcomes of their work. Honiball (2008) defines work
performance as "any action or behaviour that contributes to the achievement of an organization's
objectives" (what is actually done). Employees who believe the company is making an effort to
meet their requirements may feel obligated to contribute to the organisation by performing well
at work.
1.1.2 Affective organizational commitment
Allen and Meyer (1990) divide organisational commitment into three dimensions: attitudinal or
affective commitment, which is derived from positive work experiences, continuance
commitment, which is derived from prior investment and the potential cost of leaving the
organisation, and normative commitment, which is loyalty or a sense of obligation to stay
attached to the organisation.
4
Affective commitment is defined as a sense of belonging and loyalty to a company, and it has
been linked to personal qualities, organisational structure, and job experience, such as
remuneration, supervision, role clarity, and skill variety. Mr. Hartman (2002). Employees with a
high AOC stay in an organisation because they want to, not because they have to. This is the
most influential type of commitment.
Furthermore, performance appraisal increases employees' perceptions of value and their

awareness of themselves as members of the organisational team, which is the primary motivation
for staying devoted to the firm.
1.1.3 Turnover intention
Turnover intention (TOI) is defined as an employee's intention to stay or leave their current
employer owing to discontent or the hunt for a new job opportunity. Employees' intent to quit
and actually quitting an organisation are affected by turnover intention, which is an attitude
component. Bishop, Glissmeyer, and Fass (2008).
Although TOI and turnover were examined separately, TOI is widely acknowledged as the
ultimate and most critical cognitive component that has a direct causal effect on real turnover.
Employee turnover refers to the movement of workers from one job to the next.
Individuals' estimated (subjective) possibility of permanently quitting the organisation at some

point in the near future is referred to as turn over intention.
The graphical relationship of the independent and dependent variables is shown as the
conceptual framework of this study based on the above conceptual literature review:
5
Independent Variable Dependent Variables
 Work
Performance
Satisfaction  Affective
organizational
with
commitment
Performance  Turnover
Appraisal intention
1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Isaac OpokU Ansah et al. (2016) conducted a study to look into the impact of performance
appraisals on employee job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Regression analysis was
utilised in conjunction with descriptive research, and the sampling was done using a stratified
sample strategy. It was used to analyse data to show that there is a positive association between
employee work satisfaction and criteria such as fairness of an appraisal system, rewards, role
clarity, and the provision of performance feedback. Employee commitment and job happiness are
influenced by factors such as role clarity and the objective of performance reviews, according to
the study.
Despite the fact that there have been several empirical research on employees' perceptions of the
performance appraisal system and its impact on work outcomes, such as work performance,
affective organisational commitment, and turnover intention. As a result, the most relevant
empirical findings from linked literatures were provided in this section.
An empirical study on the impact of performance appraisal on attitudinal outcomes and

organizational performance is conducted by Ahmed (2010). There were 250 people in the
sample, and 123 of them returned. According to the findings of the study, there is a statistically
6
significant negative association (r=-811) between respondents' perceptions of performance
appraisal satisfaction and employee turnover intention.
The purpose of the study by Abraham Zewdie Bekele, Assegid Demissie Shigutu, Assefa Tsegay
Tensayis to assess awareness of ANRS Audit & Supervisory Board performance evaluation
practices and their impact on staff performance in terms of job performance, emotional
involvement, and willingness to retire. A review of the theoretical, conceptual, and empirical
literature of the study found that employee perceptions of performance assessment practices had
a significant bearing on the outcome of their work.
First, the researchers (Abraham Zewdie Bekele, Assegid Demissie Shigutu, Assefa Tsegay
Tensay) was able to present the perceptions of the ANRS office of the auditor general employees
regarding the performance appraisal system, where the employees expressed a low level of
satisfaction with the performance appraisal system used by the organisation, with a mean value
of 3.30 and standard deviation of 1.15. The findings of the interview confirm this assertion, but
this does not imply that they are wholly dissatisfied with the overall appraisal process; rather,
they are slightly satisfied with the performance.
Second, the researchers attempted to show the link between employees' perceptions of
performance appraisal and predicted job outcomes, such as work performance, affective
commitment, and desire to leave. Employees' perceptions of performance appraisal have a
significant and positive relationship with work performance and affective organisational
commitment, as well as a significant but negative relationship with intention to stay in the
performance appraisal system, according to the correlation analysis results.
Finally, the researchers were able to investigate and analyse the variable (workers' perception of
performance appraisal) that has an impact on the employees' job outcomes, such as work
performance, affective organisational commitment, and intention to leave. As a result of the
simple regressions analysis, it can be concluded that: - There is a relatively strong relationship
between employees' perceptions of performance appraisal and work performance, followed by
affective organisational commitment, and turnover intentions, respectively, among the three
dependent variables. Employee satisfaction (positive perception) with the performance appraisal
process, on the other hand, has a favourable impact on employees' work performance and
7
affective organisational commitment, however it has a negative impact on employees' intention
to leave.
According to the study by W.A.S.Weerakkody and W.G.S.Mahalekamge, performance appraisal

satisfaction had a 10% impact on employee motivation, a 14% impact on work performance, and
a 5% impact on employee commitment, according to the survey results. As a result, employee
happiness has a greater impact on work performance than employee motivation and dedication.
Performance appraisal satisfaction is favourably but weakly linked (r =.333, p 0.01) with
workers' work performance, according to the findings of this study. In addition, there is a
positive but weak association between job satisfaction and performance appraisal satisfaction (r
=.384, p 0.01). Also, according to the above table, employee commitment is positively but
weakly connected (r =.243, p 0.05) with performance appraisal satisfaction.
Employee motivation, work performance, employee commitment, and PA satisfaction were all
judged to be satisfactory at the Bank of Ceylon Head Office.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The overall goal of this study is to find out how satisfied people are with performance appraisal
systems as a tool for improving employee outcomes.
The following specific objectives are defined based on the study's overall goal.
1. Satisfaction with performance appraisal is positively affecting Work Performance.

2. Satisfaction with performance appraisal is positively affecting organizational
commitment.
3. Satisfaction with performance appraisal is negatively affect turnover.
4. Evaluate the effect of demographic variables in job performance, affective commitment,
and turnover intention.
8
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
9
2.1 THE STUDY:
The study is causal in nature in which survey method have been used for data collection.
2.2 THE SAMPLE DESIGN:
POPULATION- Included respondents for Gwalior region only.
SAMPLE SIZE- Sample size for 150 respondents.
TIME FRAME- From March 2022- May 2022.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE- Non probability purposive sampling technique have been used to
select the sample.
2.3 TOOLS WHICH WERE USED FOR DATA COLLECTION:

The questionnaire adapted from Standard questionnaires have been used to collect primary data.
The data have been collected on likert scale ranging 1-5.
2.4 TOOLS WHICH WERE USED FOR DATA ANALYSIS:

 Reliability test have been applied to check the reliability of the questionnaire.
 Regression test have been applied to examine the cause and effect relationship
between independent and dependent variables.
 Correlations test have been applied to know the relationship between the variables.
 One way anova have been applied to investigate if variations, or different levels of
that factor have a measurable effect on a dependent variable.
10
CHAPTER 3
11
3.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reliability
Cronbach Alpha had been applied to calculate reliability of all items in the questionnaire.
The results of the questionnaire, which is used to measure Satisfaction with Performance
Appraisal, are as follows.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.889 10
It is considered that the reliability value more than 0.7 is good and it can be seen that almost all
the reliability methods applied here the reliability value of first variable is 0.889 which is higher
than 0.7 so all the items of this questionnaire were considered reliable.
The results of the questionnaire, which is used to measure Turnover Intention, are as follows.
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.845 8
the reliability methods applied here the reliability value of second variable is 0.845 which is
higher than 0.7 so all the items of this questionnaire were considered reliable.
The results of the questionnaire, which is used to measuring Affective Organizational

Commitment, are as follows.
12
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.767 5
the reliability methods applied here the reliability value of third variable is 0.767 which is higher
than 0.7 so all the items of this questionnaire were considered reliable.
The results of the questionnaire, which is used to measuring Work Performance, are as follows.
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.719 6
the reliability methods applied here the reliability value of fourth variable is 0.719 which is
higher than 0.7 so all the items of this questionnaire were considered reliable.
Regression Analysis
The regression is calculated by taking the total of all PA, TI, AOC, WP responses by using SPSS
software. In this the PA is independent variable and TI, AOC, WP are dependent variables.
Therefore, regression is calculated by taking dependent variable and independent variable.
On taking Performance Appraisal as independent variable and Turnover Intention as

dependent variable:
13
Model Summaryb
Model Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-

R R Square Square the Estimate Watson
d1 .032a .001 -.006 6.70682 2.184

i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
a. Predictors: (Constant), PA
b. Dependent Variable: TI
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Mean

Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6.567 1 6.567 .146 .703a
Residual 6477.323 144 44.981
Total 6483.890 145
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized

Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
14
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 29.255 3.401 8.601 .000
PA -.032 .084 -.032 -.382 .703
a. Dependent Variable: TI
The linear regression was applied on Performance Appraisal (independent variable) and
Turnover Intention (dependent variable). The result of regression indicates that independent
variables have insignificant and negative impact on dependent variable.
The value of adjusted r square (-.006) indicates that the overall performance appraisal (PA) has
influenced (-.6%) of the turnover intention.
The impact of independent variables to dependent variable is indicated by standardized

coefficient of beta value i.e. for PA (β1 = -0.032, p = 0.703) means significant at 70.3%.
On taking Performance Appraisal as independent variable and Affective Organisational

Commitment as dependent variable:
Model Summaryb
Model Adjusted R Std. Error of the

R R Square Square Estimate Durbin-Watson
d
1 .619a .383 .379 2.72527 1.868
i
b. Dependent Variable: AOC
15
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 664.170 1 664.170 89.425 .000a
Residual 1069.501 144 7.427
Total 1733.671 145
Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 6.530 1.382 4.725 .000
PA .324 .034 .619 9.457 .000
a. Dependent Variable: AOC
The linear regression was applied on Performance Appraisal (independent variable) and
Affective Organizational Commitment (dependent variable). The result of regression indicates
that independent variables have insignificant impact on dependent variable.
The value of adjusted r square (.379) indicates that the overall performance appraisal (PA) has
influenced (37.9%) of the Affective Organizational Commitment.

coefficient of beta value i.e. for PA (β1 = 0.619, p = 0.000).
On taking Performance Appraisal as independent variable and Turnover Intention as

dependent variable:
16
Model Summaryb

d
1 .427a .182 .176 3.17891 1.957
i
b. Dependent Variable: WP
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 323.807 1 323.807 32.043 .000a
Residual 1455.186 144 10.105
Total 1778.993 145
Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
1 (Constant) 15.003 1.612 9.307 .000
PA .226 .040 .427 5.661 .000
17
Model Summaryb

d
1 .427a .182 .176 3.17891 1.957
i
a. Dependent Variable: WP
The linear regression was applied on Performance Appraisal (independent variable) and Work
Performance (dependent variable). The result of regression indicates that independent variable
have insignificant impact on dependent variable.
The value of adjusted r square (.176) indicates that the overall performance appraisal (PA) has
influenced (17.6%) of the Work Performance.

coefficient of beta value i.e. for PA (β1 = 0.427, p = 0.000).
Correlation Analysis
Correlations
GENDER STUDY AGE DURATION PROCESS
GENDER Pearson Correlation 1 .128 -.211* -.211* .092
Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .010 .010 .271
N 146 146 146 146 146
18
STUDY Pearson Correlation .128 1 -.026 -.111 .042
Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .751 .183 .618
N 146 146 146 146 146
AGE Pearson Correlation -.211* -.026 1 .688** -.203*
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .751 .000 .014
N 146 146 146 146 146
DURATION Pearson Correlation -.211* -.111 .688** 1 -.309**
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .183 .000 .000
N 146 146 146 146 146
PROCESS Pearson Correlation .092 .042 -.203* -.309** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .271 .618 .014 .000
N 146 146 146 146 146
PA Pearson Correlation -.043 .019 .002 -.073 -.110
Sig. (2-tailed) .604 .823 .981 .383 .187
N 146 146 146 146 146
TI Pearson Correlation -.015 -.107 -.171* -.181* -.004
Sig. (2-tailed) .858 .198 .040 .029 .965
N 146 146 146 146 146
AOC Pearson Correlation -.074 .108 .089 -.037 -.119
Sig. (2-tailed) .372 .194 .285 .657 .151
N 146 146 146 146 146
WP Pearson Correlation -.112 -.059 .082 .030 -.147
Sig. (2-tailed) .177 .478 .324 .723 .077
19
N 146 146 146 146 146
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
SPSS creates a full correlation matrix by default. Each correlation appears twice: once
above the main diagonal and once below it. The correlations on the main diagonal are
between each variable and itself, which is why they are all 1 and uninteresting.
A correlation is statistically significant if its “Sig. (2-tailed)” < 0.05.
Now let's take a close look at our results: the strongest correlation is between duration and
age, r = -0.688. It's based on N = 146 and its 2-tailed significance, p = 0.000. This means
there's a 0.000 probability of finding this sample correlation -or a larger one- if the actual
population correlation is zero.
One-way ANOVA Test
SPSS produces a lot of data for the one-way ANOVA test. Let’s deal with the
important bits in turn.
F Statistic (ANOVA Result)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
TI Between Groups 1.445 1 1.445 .032 .858
Within Groups 6482.445 144 45.017
Total 6483.890 145
AOC Between Groups 9.596 1 9.596 .802 .372
Within Groups 1724.075 144 11.973
Total 1733.671 145
WP Between Groups 22.437 1 22.437 1.839 .177
Within Groups 1756.556 144 12.198
20
ANOVA
Within Groups 6482.445 144 45.017
Total 6483.890 145
Within Groups 1724.075 144 11.973
Total 1733.671 145
Within Groups 1756.556 144 12.198
Total 1778.993 145
There is insignificant effect of gender on all the variables.
In our example, the p-value is greater than the 0.05 alpha level, indicating that the
result is insignificant. This indicates that the differences among the dependent
variables are statistically insignificant.
ANOVA
TI Between Groups 74.413 1 74.413 1.672 .198
Within Groups 6409.477 144 44.510
Total 6483.890 145
AOC Between Groups 20.263 1 20.263 1.703 .194
Within Groups 1713.408 144 11.899
Total 1733.671 145
21
WP Between Groups 6.238 1 6.238 .507 .478
Within Groups 1772.755 144 12.311
Total 1778.993 145
There is insignificant effect of level of study on all the variables.
ANOVA
Within Groups 6214.744 142 43.766
Total 6483.890 145
Within Groups 1703.699 142 11.998
Total 1733.671 145
WP Between Groups 31.208 3 10.403 .845 .471
Within Groups 1747.785 142 12.308
Total 1778.993 145
There is insignificant effect of age on all the variables.
22
ANOVA
Within Groups 6202.680 141 43.991
Total 6483.890 145
Within Groups 1723.192 141 12.221
Total 1733.671 145
Within Groups 1721.291 141 12.208
Total 1778.993 145
There is insignificant effect of length of time in company on all the variables.
ANOVA
Within Groups 6453.819 143 45.132
Total 6483.890 145
AOC Between Groups 92.038 2 46.019 4.009 .020
Within Groups 1641.634 143 11.480
Total 1733.671 145
23
Within Groups 1666.570 143 11.654
Total 1778.993 145
There is significant effect of process on all the variables.
In our case, the p-value is less than the.05 alpha level, indicating that the result is
significant. This indicates that the dependent variables are statistically different.
3.2 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
Conclusion
The study has been done to check the impact of Performance Appraisal on Turnover Intention,
Affective Organizational Commitment and Work Performance. All the measures are reliable as
indicated by the reliability measure which is higher than 0.7 it is acceptable.
In this study PA is independent variable and Turnover Intention, Affective Organizational

Commitment, Work Performance are dependent variables. The study has been done on different
employees. According to our analysis the findings indicates that there is insignificant and
negative impact of performance appraisal on turnover intention, in second case there is
insignificant and positive impact of performance appraisal on affective organizational
commitment and in third case there is insignificant and positive impact of performance appraisal
on work performance.
Overall, the result from this study indicated that there was no significant relationship between the
variables. This research has shown the concern of employees towards performance appraisal
satisfaction, especially on the employee outcome. This study also concluded that turnover
intention in the performance appraisal system did not significantly contribute or have negative
impact to PA.
Summary
This study has been into three chapters. The first chapters include introduction and its sub part
i.e. conceptual framework, literature review, rational of the study and objective. In Conceptual
framework all definitions and introduction about the topic has been included. In literature review
all related researches, which have been done previously, are included rationally shows the need
24
of the study i.e. why we have done this study. The objective included all the objectives of the
study.
Second chapter is the research methodology which include nature of the study, the sample
design, tools for the data collection and analytical tools like this study exploratory in nature &
survey method and methodology used in this research. The sample size of the research is 150; a
non–probability purposive sampling technique was used for study.
Third is result and discussion, it includes the result of the research and discussion means whether
review of literature match with our result or not.
3.3 IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Suggestions
1. The study has been done only on Academicians only so it is suggested that we can do it on
others sectors as well to get more appropriate result about different sectors employees.
2. The study has been done on four variables i.e., PA, AOC, TI, WP. Thus to get result at a
broadest perspective more or other variable could be included.
3. The study has been done by taking only sample of 150 respondents therefore it is suggested
to take bigger sample size in order to obtain more accurate results.
4. To make this study more thorough, it is proposed that we conduct it on personnel from
various industries to obtain more relevant results.
Implications
1. This study is designed to be relevant for future research investigations in which researchers
wish to understand the differences in performance appraisal scale satisfaction among that
sector.
2. References of the study can also be helpful for students for their research.
3. Students for their further research may use the questionnaire.
25
REFERENCES
Abraham, Assegid, Assefa. (2014, April). The Effect of Employees’ Perception of Performance
Appraisal on Their Work Outcomes.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332874560_The_Effect_of_Employees’_Perception_of
_Performance_Appraisal_on_Their_Work_Outcomes
Bhatia, Vaibhavi A, Patel, Ms.Ripal. (2018, June). A Study on Employees’ Satisfaction towards
Performance Appraisal System at Power Generation Company.
https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIRC006102.pdf
Husna, Faiza. (2015, November). Impact of performance appraisal on job satisfaction in banking
sector of Pakistan. http://www.ijmsbr.com/Volume%204%20Issue%2011%20Paper%207.pdf
Noor, Muhammad Mustaneer, Majeed, Irfan. (2021, April). The Impact of Performance
Appraisal on Employee Satisfaction and Motivation in Banking Sector of Pakistan.
http://www.gjesrm.com/Issues%20PDF/Archive-2021/April-2021/1.pdf
Sharma, N. Anjaneya, Rao, B. K. Surya Prakasha. (2019, June). Factors influencing executive-
employee perception towards performance appraisal system: A Study of select units of Indian
Steel Sector. http://ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_20543610.pdf
Warokka, Ari. (2012, October). Organizational Justice in Performance Appraisal System and
Work Performance: Evidence from an Emerging Market.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266080982_Organizational_Justice_in_Performance_A
ppraisal_System_and_Work_Performance_Evidence_from_an_Emerging_Market
Weerakkody, WAS, Mahalekamge, Geethani. (2013, July). The Relationship between

Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Employee Outcomes: With Special Reference of Bank of
Ceylon Head Office.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313829278_The_Relationship_between_Performance_
Appraisal_Satisfaction_and_Employee_Outcomes_With_Special_Reference_of_Bank_of_Ceylo
n_Head_Office
26
ANNEXURE
27
QUESTIONNAIRE
We, Avani Sharma & Vani Gangil are the students of MBA (FT) 4th Semester and are going
under our research project on "Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal System as a tool to
enhance Employee Outcome", we request you to kindly give your relevant responses. The
information given by you will be considered confidential and will only be used for research
purpose.
1. Name: __________________
2. Email ID:___________________
3. Gender:___________________
4. Level of Study
o Graduate
o Post Graduate
5. Age Group
o Under 25
o 25 - 34
o 35 - 44
o 45 and above
6. Length of Time in Company
o under a year
o 1 - 4 years
o 5 - 9 years
o 10-14 years
o 15 years or over
7. Do you complete a Performance Appraisal Process?
o Yes
o No
Please rate the following statements from 1 to 5.
1 - Strongly Disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly Agree
Part A: Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal
 Performance appraisal system in my organization is very effective.
28
1 Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree
 My superior is very fair in conducting performance appraisal.

1 Strongly Disgree to 5 Strongly Agree
 The issues related to performance appraisal can be discussed freely with the management.
 I am satisfied with the feedback I receive whenever performance appraisal is conducted

in my organization.
 I feel more motivated after performance appraisal.

 I’m totally satisfied with the performance appraisal system implied in my organisation.
 I am satisfied with the performance appraisal tool applied in my organization.

 Performance appraisal process was a satisfying experience.

 Performance appraisal system is designed to provide opportunities to appeal or challenge

the appraisal rating
 Performance appraisal makes me better understand what I should be doing.

Part B: Turnover Intention
 I intent to make a genuine effort to find another job over the next few months.
 I intend to leave the organization.

29
 I will probably look for a new job in the next year.
 I may quit my present job next year.

 I will likely actively look for a new job within the next three years.
 I often think about quitting my present job.

 I do not see much prospects for the future in this organization.

 I have a promising future in this organization.

Part C: Affective Organizational Commitment

 I enjoy in discussing about my organization with outside people.
 I usually consider organizations problems as my own problems and strive hard to solve
them.
 I feel a strong sense of attachment with my organization.

 I am able to receive the feedback for whatever I achieve on my job.

 I am able to receive recognition for my performance in my organization.

30
Part D: Work Performance
 I always reach my performance target.

 I consider my work performance better than the average employee in this firm.
 I feel that my work performance is reflective of my abilities.

 I feel that my job conditions are not allowing me to perform at high level.
 Performance Reviews provide me with the opportunity to set personal goals.

 Performance appraisal process help me to find out about my level of performance

31
APPENDIX
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 27-May-2022 23:16:42
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working 153

Data File
Matrix Input
Missing Value Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are

Handling treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases

with valid data for all variables
in the procedure.
32
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=PA1 PA2 PA3

PA4 PA5 PA6 PA7 PA8 PA9
PA10
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.047
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.168
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 146 95.4
Excludeda 7 4.6
Total 153 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all

variables in the procedure.
33
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.889 10
Item Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
PA1 4.0479 .94928 146
PA2 3.9315 1.03496 146
PA3 3.8425 .97336 146
PA4 3.8219 .91490 146
PA5 4.1849 .84693 146
PA6 3.7945 1.03002 146
PA7 3.9247 .96908 146
PA8 4.0137 .87876 146
PA9 4.0342 .85834 146
PA10 4.1986 .86797 146
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's

if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
PA1 35.7466 35.859 .604 .879
PA2 35.8630 34.878 .628 .878
34
PA3 35.9521 36.018 .570 .882
PA4 35.9726 35.392 .680 .874
PA5 35.6096 37.026 .571 .881
PA6 36.0000 33.779 .734 .869
PA7 35.8699 34.583 .711 .871
PA8 35.7808 35.290 .725 .871
PA9 35.7603 37.149 .549 .883
PA10 35.5959 37.774 .478 .887
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TI5 TI6 TI7 TI8
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
35
Split File <none>

Data File
Matrix Input


in the procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=TI1 TI2 TI3

TI4 TI5 TI6 TI7 TI8
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
N %
Excludeda 7 4.6
36
Total 153 100.0

Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.845 8
Item Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
TI1 3.6096 1.14092 146
TI2 3.3767 1.19274 146
TI3 3.4726 1.22162 146
TI4 3.4795 1.26065 146
TI5 3.8288 1.13478 146
TI6 3.4041 1.21813 146
TI7 3.2123 1.29300 146
TI8 3.5890 1.17838 146

TI1 24.3630 34.964 .626 .822
37
TI2 24.5959 33.829 .682 .814
TI3 24.5000 32.707 .753 .805
TI4 24.4932 32.817 .714 .809
TI5 24.1438 36.027 .543 .832
TI6 24.5685 32.840 .744 .806
TI7 24.7603 32.432 .721 .808
TI8 24.3836 44.321 -.063 .897
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=AOC1 AOC2 AOC3 AOC4 AOC5
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
38
Split File <none>

Data File
Matrix Input


in the procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=AOC1 AOC2
AOC3 AOC4 AOC5
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
39
N %
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 146 100.0

Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.767 5
Item Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
AOC 3.8767 1.04973 146

1
AOC 3.8904 .89538 146

2
AOC 3.7534 .96534 146

3
AOC 4.0068 .89054 146

4
40
Item Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
AOC 3.8767 1.04973 146

1
AOC 3.8904 .89538 146

2
AOC 3.7534 .96534 146

3
AOC 4.0068 .89054 146

4
AOC 3.8973 .99467 146

5

AOC 15.5479 7.960 .489 .744

1
AOC 15.5342 8.513 .506 .736

2
AOC 15.6712 7.864 .584 .708

3
AOC 15.4178 8.383 .539 .725

4
AOC 15.5274 7.768 .577 .711

5
41
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File
Matrix Input


in the procedure.
42
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=WP1 WP2
WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
N %
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 146 100.0

Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
43
N %
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 146 100.0
.719 6
Item Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
WP1 4.1438 .83037 146
WP2 4.0616 .90381 146
WP3 4.0205 .85071 146
WP4 3.5753 1.11933 146
WP5 4.0479 .84145 146
WP6 4.1575 .85249 146

WP1 19.8630 9.154 .483 .673
WP2 19.9452 8.769 .501 .665
44
WP3 19.9863 9.007 .497 .668
WP4 20.4315 9.461 .226 .766
WP5 19.9589 8.605 .599 .638
WP6 19.8493 8.998 .497 .668
GET
FILE='C:\Users\Avni\Documents\RC.sav'.
DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.
REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING MEANSUBSTITUTION
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT TI
/METHOD=ENTER PA
/SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID ,*ZPRED)
/RESIDUALS DURBIN HISTOGRAM(ZRESID) NORMPROB(ZRESID)
/SAVE ZPRED COOK ZRESID.
45
Regression
Notes
Comments
Input Data C:\Users\Avni\Documents\RC.sav
Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File
Missing Value Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as

Handling missing.
Cases Used For each variable used, missing values are

replaced with the variable mean.
46
Syntax REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN STDDEV CORR

SIG N
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT TI
/METHOD=ENTER PA
/RESIDUALS DURBIN
HISTOGRAM(ZRESID)
NORMPROB(ZRESID)
Memory Required 1516 bytes
Additional Memory 912 bytes

Required for Residual
Plots
Variables Created or ZPR_1 Standardized Predicted Value

Modified
ZRE_1 Standardized Residual
COO_1 Cook's Distance
47
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
TI 27.9726 6.68704 146
PA 39.7945 6.60503 146
Correlations
TI PA
Pearson TI 1.000 -.032

Correlation
PA -.032 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) TI . .351
PA .351 .
N TI 146 146
PA 146 146
Variables Entered/Removedb
Mode Variables Variables

l Entered Removed Method
48
d1 PAa . Enter
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
a. All requested variables entered.
Model Summaryb

d1 .032a .001 -.006 6.70682 2.184

i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
49
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Mean

1 Regression 6.567 1 6.567 .146 .703a
Residual 6477.323 144 44.981
Total 6483.890 145
Coefficientsa

Coefficients Coefficients
1 (Constant) 29.255 3.401 8.601 .000
PA -.032 .084 -.032 -.382 .703
Residuals Statisticsa
Maximu Std.
Minimum m Mean Deviation N
Predicted Value 27.6438 28.6748 27.9726 .21282 146
Std. Predicted Value -1.545 3.300 .000 1.000 146
Standard Error of .555 1.920 .752 .225 146

Predicted Value
50
Adjusted Predicted 27.3488 28.6685 27.9696 .22930 146
Value
Residual -16.96598 12.35622 .00000 6.68365 146
Std. Residual -2.530 1.842 .000 .997 146
Stud. Residual -2.538 1.864 .000 1.004 146
Deleted Residual -17.08310 12.65117 .00299 6.77774 146
Stud. Deleted Residual -2.588 1.881 -.001 1.009 146
Mahal. Distance .001 10.888 .993 1.484 146
Cook's Distance .000 .058 .007 .011 146
Centered Leverage .000 .075 .007 .010 146

Value
Charts
51
52
REGRESSION
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS BCOV R ANOVA
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT AOC
/METHOD=ENTER PA
Regression
Notes
Comments
Input Data C:\Users\Avni\Documents\RC.s

av
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File

53
Cases Used For each variable used, missing
values are replaced with the
variable mean.
Syntax REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN
STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING
MEANSUBSTITUTION
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS

BCOV R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05)
POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT AOC
/METHOD=ENTER PA
/SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID
,*ZPRED)
/RESIDUALS DURBIN
HISTOGRAM(ZRESID)
NORMPROB(ZRESID)
/SAVE ZPRED COOK

ZRESID.

Plots
54
Modified
Std.
Mean Deviation N
AOC 19.4247 3.45780 146
PA 39.7945 6.60503 146
Correlations
AOC PA
Pearson AOC 1.000 .619

Correlation
PA .619 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) AOC . .000
PA .000 .
N AOC 146 146
PA 146 146
55
Model Variables Variables

Entered Removed Method
d1 PAa . Enter
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
Model Summaryb

d1 .619a .383 .379 2.72527 1.868

i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
56
Model Summaryb

d1 .619a .383 .379 2.72527 1.868

i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Mean

1 Regression 664.170 1 664.170 89.425 .000a
Residual 1069.501 144 7.427
Total 1733.671 145
57
Coefficientsa

1 (Constant) 6.530 1.382 4.725 .000
PA .324 .034 .619 9.457 .000
Coefficient Correlationsa
Model PA
1 Correlations PA 1.000
Covariances PA .001
Maximu Std.
Minimum m Mean Deviation N
Predicted Value 12.3627 22.7315 19.4247 2.14021 146
Standard Error of .226 .780 .306 .092 146

Predicted Value
Adjusted Predicted 12.1273 23.0115 19.4208 2.15254 146

Value
58
Residual -11.73151 7.36916 .00000 2.71585 146
Std. Residual -4.305 2.704 .000 .997 146
Stud. Residual -4.356 2.762 .001 1.005 146
Stud. Deleted Residual -4.658 2.828 -.002 1.021 146
Mahal. Distance .001 10.888 .993 1.484 146
Cook's Distance .000 .226 .008 .024 146

Value
Charts
59
60
REGRESSION
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS BCOV R ANOVA
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT WP
/METHOD=ENTER PA
Regression
Notes
Comments

av
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File

61
Cases Used For each variable used, missing
values are replaced with the
variable mean.
Syntax REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN
STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING
MEANSUBSTITUTION
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS

BCOV R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05)
POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT WP
/METHOD=ENTER PA
/SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID
,*ZPRED)
/RESIDUALS DURBIN
HISTOGRAM(ZRESID)
NORMPROB(ZRESID)
/SAVE ZPRED COOK

ZRESID.

Plots
62
Modified
Std.
Mean Deviation N
WP 24.0068 3.50270 146
PA 39.7945 6.60503 146
Correlations
WP PA
Pearson WP 1.000 .427

Correlation
PA .427 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) WP . .000
PA .000 .
N WP 146 146
PA 146 146
Model Variables Variables

Entered Removed Method
63
d1 PAa . Enter
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
Model Summaryb

d1 .427a .182 .176 3.17891 1.957

i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
64
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Mean

1 Regression 323.807 1 323.807 32.043 .000a
Residual 1455.186 144 10.105
Total 1778.993 145
Coefficientsa

1 (Constant) 15.003 1.612 9.307 .000
PA .226 .040 .427 5.661 .000
Coefficient Correlationsa
Model PA
1 Correlations PA 1.000
Covariances PA .002
65
Minimu Maximu Std.

m m Mean Deviation N
Predicted Value 19.0759 26.3158 24.0068 1.49437 146
Standard Error of .263 .910 .357 .107 146

Predicted Value
Adjusted Predicted 18.4579 26.4188 24.0013 1.51061 146

Value
Residual -7.95833 7.66163 .00000 3.16793 146
Std. Residual -2.503 2.410 .000 .997 146
Stud. Residual -2.516 2.446 .001 1.006 146
Stud. Deleted Residual -2.564 2.489 .001 1.011 146
Mahal. Distance .001 10.888 .993 1.484 146
Cook's Distance .000 .231 .009 .023 146

Value
66
Charts
67
ONEWAY TI AOC WP BY GENDER
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).
68
Oneway
Notes
Comments

av
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File

Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are

based on cases with no missing
data for any variable in the
analysis.
Syntax ONEWAY TI AOC WP BY

GENDER
/STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=TUKEY
ALPHA(0.05).
69
Warnings
Post hoc tests are not performed for TI because there are fewer than three
groups.
Post hoc tests are not performed for AOC because there are fewer than
three groups.
Post hoc tests are not performed for WP because there are fewer than
three groups.
Descriptives
Std. Std.
N Mean Deviation Error
TI MALE 81 28.0617 6.95943 .77327
FEMAL 65 27.8615 6.38327 .79175

E
Total 146 27.9726 6.68704 .55342
AOC MALE 81 19.6543 3.35470 .37274
FEMAL 65 19.1385 3.58764 .44499

E
Total 146 19.4247 3.45780 .28617
WP MALE 81 24.3580 3.46522 .38502
FEMAL 65 23.5692 3.52655 .43741

E
Total 146 24.0068 3.50270 .28989
70
Descriptives
95% Confidence Interval for

Mean
Lower Minimu Maximu

Bound Upper Bound m m
TI MALE 26.5229 29.6006 11.00 40.00
FEMAL 26.2798 29.4432 14.00 40.00

E
Total 26.8788 29.0664 11.00 40.00
AOC MALE 18.9125 20.3961 11.00 25.00
FEMAL 18.2495 20.0274 10.00 25.00

E
Total 18.8591 19.9903 10.00 25.00
WP MALE 23.5918 25.1242 15.00 30.00
FEMAL 22.6954 24.4431 16.00 30.00

E
Total 23.4339 24.5798 15.00 30.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
TI Between 1.445 1 1.445 .032 .858

Groups
Within Groups 6482.445 144 45.017
Total 6483.890 145
71
AOC Between 9.596 1 9.596 .802 .372
Groups
Within Groups 1724.075 144 11.973
Total 1733.671 145
WP Between 22.437 1 22.437 1.839 .177

Groups
Within Groups 1756.556 144 12.198
Total 1778.993 145
ONEWAY TI AOC WP BY STUDY
/MISSING ANALYSIS
Oneway
Notes
Comments

av
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
72
Split File <none>

Data File


analysis.

STUDY
/STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=TUKEY
ALPHA(0.05).
Warnings
Post hoc tests are not performed for TI because there are fewer than three
groups.
Post hoc tests are not performed for AOC because there are fewer than
three groups.
Post hoc tests are not performed for WP because there are fewer than
three groups.
73
Descriptives
Std. Std.
TI GRADUATE 55 28.8909 5.85211 .78910
POST 91 27.4176 7.11816 .74619

GRADUATE
Total 146 27.9726 6.68704 .55342
AOC GRADUATE 55 18.9455 3.58711 .48369
POST 91 19.7143 3.36414 .35266

GRADUATE
Total 146 19.4247 3.45780 .28617
WP GRADUATE 55 24.2727 3.61814 .48787
POST 91 23.8462 3.44133 .36075

GRADUATE
Total 146 24.0068 3.50270 .28989
Descriptives

Mean
Lower Minimu Maximu

TI GRADUATE 27.3089 30.4730 14.00 40.00
POST 25.9352 28.9000 11.00 40.00

GRADUATE
Total 26.8788 29.0664 11.00 40.00
AOC GRADUATE 17.9757 19.9152 10.00 25.00
74
POST 19.0137 20.4149 11.00 25.00
GRADUATE
Total 18.8591 19.9903 10.00 25.00
WP GRADUATE 23.2946 25.2508 16.00 30.00
POST 23.1295 24.5628 15.00 30.00

GRADUATE
Total 23.4339 24.5798 15.00 30.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
TI Between 74.413 1 74.413 1.672 .198

Groups
Within Groups 6409.477 144 44.510
Total 6483.890 145
AOC Between 20.263 1 20.263 1.703 .194

Groups
Within Groups 1713.408 144 11.899
Total 1733.671 145
WP Between 6.238 1 6.238 .507 .478

Groups
Within Groups 1772.755 144 12.311
Total 1778.993 145
75
ONEWAY TI AOC WP BY AGE
/MISSING ANALYSIS
Oneway
Notes
Comments

av
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File


analysis.
76
AGE
/STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=TUKEY
ALPHA(0.05).
Descriptives
Std. Std.
TI BELOW 25 104 28.3654 6.39639 .62722
25 TO 34 YEARS 33 28.0606 6.58094 1.14559
35 TO 44 YEARS 5 25.0000 10.34408 4.62601
45 YEARS AND 4 20.7500 7.88987 3.94493

ABOVE
Total 146 27.9726 6.68704 .55342
AOC BELOW 25 104 19.3173 3.63976 .35691
25 TO 34 YEARS 33 19.3030 3.06681 .53386
35 TO 44 YEARS 5 21.6000 2.30217 1.02956
45 YEARS AND 4 20.5000 2.38048 1.19024

ABOVE
Total 146 19.4247 3.45780 .28617
77
WP BELOW 25 104 23.8846 3.70334 .36314
25 TO 34 YEARS 33 23.9697 3.02577 .52672
35 TO 44 YEARS 5 26.4000 2.88097 1.28841
45 YEARS AND 4 24.5000 1.73205 .86603

ABOVE
Total 146 24.0068 3.50270 .28989
Descriptives

Mean
Lower Minimu Maximu

TI BELOW 25 27.1214 29.6093 14.00 40.00
25 TO 34 YEARS 25.7271 30.3941 11.00 40.00
35 TO 44 YEARS 12.1561 37.8439 13.00 40.00
45 YEARS AND 8.1955 33.3045 12.00 30.00

ABOVE
Total 26.8788 29.0664 11.00 40.00
AOC BELOW 25 18.6095 20.0252 10.00 25.00
25 TO 34 YEARS 18.2156 20.3905 14.00 25.00
35 TO 44 YEARS 18.7415 24.4585 19.00 25.00
45 YEARS AND 16.7121 24.2879 18.00 23.00

ABOVE
Total 18.8591 19.9903 10.00 25.00
WP BELOW 25 23.1644 24.6048 15.00 30.00
78
25 TO 34 YEARS 22.8968 25.0426 16.00 30.00
35 TO 44 YEARS 22.8228 29.9772 22.00 30.00
45 YEARS AND 21.7439 27.2561 23.00 26.00

ABOVE
Total 23.4339 24.5798 15.00 30.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
TI Between 269.146 3 89.715 2.050 .110

Groups
Within Groups 6214.744 142 43.766
Total 6483.890 145
AOC Between 29.973 3 9.991 .833 .478

Groups
Within Groups 1703.699 142 11.998
Total 1733.671 145
WP Between 31.208 3 10.403 .845 .471

Groups
Within Groups 1747.785 142 12.308
Total 1778.993 145
79
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Tukey HSD
Dependent (I) AGE (J) AGE Mean

Variable Difference Std.
(I-J) Error
TI BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS .30478 1.32176
35 TO 44 YEARS 3.36538 3.02886
45 YEARS AND 7.61538 3.37080

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS BELOW 25 -.30478 1.32176
35 TO 44 YEARS 3.06061 3.17481
45 YEARS AND 7.31061 3.50253

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS BELOW 25 -3.36538 3.02886

dimension
25 TO 34 YEARS -3.06061 3.17481
1
45 YEARS AND 4.25000 4.43786
ABOVE
45 YEARS AND BELOW 25 -7.61538 3.37080

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS -7.31061 3.50253
35 TO 44 YEARS -4.25000 4.43786
AOC BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS .01428 .69205
35 TO 44 YEARS -2.28269 1.58586
45 YEARS AND -1.18269 1.76489

ABOVE
80
25 TO 34 YEARS BELOW 25 -.01428 .69205
35 TO 44 YEARS -2.29697 1.66227
45 YEARS AND -1.19697 1.83386

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS BELOW 25 2.28269 1.58586
25 TO 34 YEARS 2.29697 1.66227
45 YEARS AND 1.10000 2.32358

ABOVE
45 YEARS AND BELOW 25 1.18269 1.76489

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS 1.19697 1.83386
35 TO 44 YEARS -1.10000 2.32358
WP BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS -.08508 .70095
35 TO 44 YEARS -2.51538 1.60624
45 YEARS AND -.61538 1.78758

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS BELOW 25 .08508 .70095
35 TO 44 YEARS -2.43030 1.68364
45 YEARS AND -.53030 1.85744

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS BELOW 25 2.51538 1.60624
25 TO 34 YEARS 2.43030 1.68364
45 YEARS AND 1.90000 2.35346

ABOVE
45 YEARS AND BELOW 25 .61538 1.78758

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS .53030 1.85744
81
35 TO 44 YEARS -1.90000 2.35346
Tukey HSD
Dependent (I) AGE (J) AGE 95%

Variable Confidence
Interval
Lower
Sig. Bound
TI BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS .996 -3.1314
35 TO 44 YEARS .683 -4.5088
45 YEARS AND .113 -1.1477

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS BELOW 25 .996 -3.7410
35 TO 44 YEARS .770 -5.1930
45 YEARS AND .162 -1.7950

ABOVE
dimension
1 35 TO 44 YEARS BELOW 25 .683 -11.2396
25 TO 34 YEARS .770 -11.3142
45 YEARS AND .774 -7.2872

ABOVE
45 YEARS AND BELOW 25 .113 -16.3785

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS .162 -16.4162
35 TO 44 YEARS .774 -15.7872
AOC BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS 1.000 -1.7849
82
35 TO 44 YEARS .477 -6.4055
45 YEARS AND .908 -5.7709

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS BELOW 25 1.000 -1.8134
35 TO 44 YEARS .513 -6.6184
45 YEARS AND .914 -5.9645

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS BELOW 25 .477 -1.8401
25 TO 34 YEARS .513 -2.0245
45 YEARS AND .965 -4.9407

ABOVE
45 YEARS AND BELOW 25 .908 -3.4055

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS .914 -3.5705
35 TO 44 YEARS .965 -7.1407
WP BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS .999 -1.9073
35 TO 44 YEARS .401 -6.6912
45 YEARS AND .986 -5.2626

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS BELOW 25 .999 -1.7372
35 TO 44 YEARS .475 -6.8073
45 YEARS AND .992 -5.3591

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS BELOW 25 .401 -1.6604
25 TO 34 YEARS .475 -1.9467
83
45 YEARS AND .851 -4.2183
ABOVE
45 YEARS AND BELOW 25 .986 -4.0318

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS .992 -4.2985
35 TO 44 YEARS .851 -8.0183
Tukey HSD
Dependent (I) AGE (J) AGE 95%

Variable Confidence
Interval
Upper
Bound
TI BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS 3.7410
35 TO 44 YEARS 11.2396
45 YEARS AND 16.3785

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS BELOW 25 3.1314
35 TO 44 YEARS 11.3142
dimension
1 45 YEARS AND 16.4162
ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS 5.1930
45 YEARS AND 15.7872

ABOVE
45 YEARS AND BELOW 25 1.1477
84
ABOVE 25 TO 34 YEARS 1.7950
35 TO 44 YEARS 7.2872
AOC BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS 1.8134
35 TO 44 YEARS 1.8401
45 YEARS AND 3.4055

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS 2.0245
45 YEARS AND 3.5705

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS 6.6184
45 YEARS AND 7.1407

ABOVE

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS 5.9645
35 TO 44 YEARS 4.9407
WP BELOW 25 25 TO 34 YEARS 1.7372
35 TO 44 YEARS 1.6604
45 YEARS AND 4.0318

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS 1.9467
45 YEARS AND 4.2985

ABOVE
85
25 TO 34 YEARS 6.8073
45 YEARS AND 8.0183

ABOVE

ABOVE
25 TO 34 YEARS 5.3591
35 TO 44 YEARS 4.2183
Homogeneous Subsets
TI
Tukey HSDa,b
AGE Subset for

alpha = 0.05
N 1
45 YEARS AND 4 20.7500

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS 5 25.0000
25 TO 34 YEARS 33 28.0606
BELOW 25 104 28.3654
Sig. .097
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are

displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 8.165.
86
TI
Tukey HSDa,b
AGE Subset for

alpha = 0.05
N 1
45 YEARS AND 4 20.7500

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS 5 25.0000
25 TO 34 YEARS 33 28.0606
BELOW 25 104 28.3654
Sig. .097

displayed.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic

mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
AOC
Tukey HSDa,b
AGE Subset for

alpha = 0.05
N 1
25 TO 34 YEARS 33 19.3030
BELOW 25 104 19.3173
45 YEARS AND 4 20.5000

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS 5 21.6000
87
Sig. .539

displayed.

WP
Tukey HSDa,b
AGE Subset for

alpha = 0.05
N 1
BELOW 25 104 23.8846
25 TO 34 YEARS 33 23.9697
45 YEARS AND 4 24.5000

ABOVE
35 TO 44 YEARS 5 26.4000
Sig. .471

displayed.

ONEWAY TI AOC WP BY DURATION
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
88
Oneway
Notes
Comments

av
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File


analysis.

DURATION
/STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
89
Descriptives
Std. Std.
TI UNDER A YEAR 87 28.5057 6.55899 .70320
1 TO 4 YEARS 42 28.0000 6.65894 1.02750
5 TO 9 YEARS 10 26.8000 6.69660 2.11765
10 TO 14 YEARS 1 30.0000 . .
15 YEARS OR 6 21.6667 7.50111 3.06232

OVER
Total 146 27.9726 6.68704 .55342
AOC UNDER A YEAR 87 19.6207 3.59341 .38525
1 TO 4 YEARS 42 19.0238 3.16604 .48853
5 TO 9 YEARS 10 19.4000 4.08792 1.29271
10 TO 14 YEARS 1 20.0000 . .
15 YEARS OR 6 19.3333 3.20416 1.30809

OVER
Total 146 19.4247 3.45780 .28617
WP UNDER A YEAR 87 23.8506 3.73708 .40066
1 TO 4 YEARS 42 24.0000 3.09208 .47712
5 TO 9 YEARS 10 25.9000 2.60128 .82260
10 TO 14 YEARS 1 27.0000 . .
15 YEARS OR 6 22.6667 3.66970 1.49815

OVER
Total 146 24.0068 3.50270 .28989
90
Descriptives

Mean
Lower Minimu Maximu

TI UNDER A YEAR 27.1078 29.9037 14.00 40.00
1 TO 4 YEARS 25.9249 30.0751 11.00 40.00
5 TO 9 YEARS 22.0095 31.5905 13.00 38.00
10 TO 14 YEARS . . 30.00 30.00
15 YEARS OR 13.7947 29.5386 12.00 33.00

OVER
Total 26.8788 29.0664 11.00 40.00
AOC UNDER A YEAR 18.8548 20.3865 11.00 25.00
1 TO 4 YEARS 18.0372 20.0104 10.00 25.00
5 TO 9 YEARS 16.4757 22.3243 11.00 25.00
10 TO 14 YEARS . . 20.00 20.00
15 YEARS OR 15.9708 22.6959 14.00 23.00

OVER
Total 18.8591 19.9903 10.00 25.00
WP UNDER A YEAR 23.0541 24.6471 15.00 30.00
1 TO 4 YEARS 23.0364 24.9636 16.00 30.00
5 TO 9 YEARS 24.0392 27.7608 20.00 30.00
10 TO 14 YEARS . . 27.00 27.00
15 YEARS OR 18.8156 26.5178 16.00 26.00

OVER
91
Descriptives

Mean
Lower Minimu Maximu

TI UNDER A YEAR 27.1078 29.9037 14.00 40.00
1 TO 4 YEARS 25.9249 30.0751 11.00 40.00
5 TO 9 YEARS 22.0095 31.5905 13.00 38.00
10 TO 14 YEARS . . 30.00 30.00
15 YEARS OR 13.7947 29.5386 12.00 33.00

OVER
Total 26.8788 29.0664 11.00 40.00
AOC UNDER A YEAR 18.8548 20.3865 11.00 25.00
1 TO 4 YEARS 18.0372 20.0104 10.00 25.00
5 TO 9 YEARS 16.4757 22.3243 11.00 25.00
10 TO 14 YEARS . . 20.00 20.00
15 YEARS OR 15.9708 22.6959 14.00 23.00

OVER
Total 18.8591 19.9903 10.00 25.00
WP UNDER A YEAR 23.0541 24.6471 15.00 30.00
1 TO 4 YEARS 23.0364 24.9636 16.00 30.00
5 TO 9 YEARS 24.0392 27.7608 20.00 30.00
10 TO 14 YEARS . . 27.00 27.00
15 YEARS OR 18.8156 26.5178 16.00 26.00

OVER
Total 23.4339 24.5798 15.00 30.00

92
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
TI Between 281.210 4 70.302 1.598 .178

Groups
Within Groups 6202.680 141 43.991
Total 6483.890 145
AOC Between 10.479 4 2.620 .214 .930

Groups
Within Groups 1723.192 141 12.221
Total 1733.671 145
WP Between 57.702 4 14.426 1.182 .322

Groups
Within Groups 1721.291 141 12.208
Total 1778.993 145
ONEWAY TI AOC WP BY PROCESS
/MISSING ANALYSIS
93
Oneway
Notes
Comments

av
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File


analysis.

PROCESS
/STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=TUKEY
ALPHA(0.05).
94
Descriptives

Mean
Std. Std. Lower

N Mean Deviation Error Bound Upper Bound
TI YES 71 27.7887 7.70327 .91421 25.9654 29.6121
NO 57 28.4737 5.74178 .76052 26.9502 29.9972
MAYB 18 27.1111 5.16651 1.21776 24.5419 29.6804

E
Total 146 27.9726 6.68704 .55342 26.8788 29.0664
AOC YES 71 20.1127 3.57990 .42486 19.2653 20.9600
NO 57 18.4386 3.22389 .42702 17.5832 19.2940
MAYB 18 19.8333 3.09173 .72873 18.2958 21.3708

E
Total 146 19.4247 3.45780 .28617 18.8591 19.9903
WP YES 71 24.8028 3.34502 .39698 24.0111 25.5946
NO 57 22.9298 3.58000 .47418 21.9799 23.8797
MAYB 18 24.2778 3.12119 .73567 22.7256 25.8299

E
Total 146 24.0068 3.50270 .28989 23.4339 24.5798
Descriptives
Minimu Maximu
m m
TI YES 11.00 40.00
NO 16.00 38.00
95
MAYB 14.00 37.00
E
Total 11.00 40.00
AOC YES 10.00 25.00
NO 11.00 25.00
MAYB 15.00 25.00

E
Total 10.00 25.00
WP YES 16.00 30.00
NO 15.00 30.00
MAYB 18.00 28.00

E
Total 15.00 30.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
TI Between 30.071 2 15.036 .333 .717

Groups
Within Groups 6453.819 143 45.132
Total 6483.890 145
AOC Between 92.038 2 46.019 4.009 .020

Groups
Within Groups 1641.634 143 11.480
96
Total 1733.671 145
WP Between 112.423 2 56.212 4.823 .009

Groups
Within Groups 1666.570 143 11.654
Total 1778.993 145
Post Hoc Tests
Tukey HSD
Dependent (I) (J) Mean

Variable PROCESS PROCESS Difference Std.
(I-J) Error Sig.
TI YES dim NO -.68495 1.19475 .835

ensi MAYB .67762 1.77284 .923
on3 E
dim NO YES .68495 1.19475 .835

dim
ensi ensi MAYB
on2 1.36257 1.81634 .734
on3 E
dimension
1
MAYB dim YES -.67762 1.77284 .923
E ensi
on3 NO -1.36257 1.81634 .734
AOC 1.67408*
dim YES dim NO .60257 .017
ensi ensi MAYB .27934 .89413 .948
on2 on3 E
97
NO -1.67408*
dim YES .60257 .017
ensi MAYB -1.39474 .91607 .283
on3 E
MAYB dim YES -.27934 .89413 .948

E ensi
on3 NO 1.39474 .91607 .283
WP YES 1.87299*
dim NO .60713 .007
ensi MAYB .52504 .90089 .830
on3 E
dim NO -1.87299*
dim YES .60713 .007
ensi ensi MAYB
on2 -1.34795 .92300 .313
on3 E
MAYB dim YES -.52504 .90089 .830

E ensi
on3 NO 1.34795 .92300 .313
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Tukey HSD
Dependent (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval

Variable PROCESS PROCESS
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
TI YES dim NO -3.5146 2.1447

dim ensi MAYB
dimension -3.5211 4.8764
ensi on3 E
1
on2
NO dim YES -2.1447 3.5146
98
ensi MAYB -2.9392 5.6643
on3 E
MAYB dim YES -4.8764 3.5211

E ensi
on3 NO -5.6643 2.9392
AOC YES dim NO .2470 3.1012

ensi MAYB -1.8383 2.3970
on3 E
dim NO dim YES -3.1012 -.2470

ensi ensi MAYB
on2 -3.5643 .7748
on3 E
MAYB dim YES -2.3970 1.8383

E ensi
on3 NO -.7748 3.5643
WP YES dim NO .4351 3.3109

ensi
MAYB -1.6086 2.6587
on3 E
dim NO dim YES -3.3109 -.4351

ensi ensi MAYB
on2 -3.5340 .8380
on3 E
MAYB dim YES -2.6587 1.6086

E ensi
on3 NO -.8380 3.5340
99
Homogeneous Subsets
TI
Tukey HSDa,b
PROCES Subset for

S alpha = 0.05
N 1
d MAYB 18 27.1111
i E
m
e YES 71 27.7887
n
NO 57 28.4737
si
o Sig. .678
n
1
Means for groups in homogeneous

subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample

Size = 34.410.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The

harmonic mean of the group sizes is
used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.
AOC
Tukey HSDa,b
PROCES Subset for

S alpha = 0.05
N 1
d NO 57 18.4386
100
i MAYB 18 19.8333
m E
e
n YES 71 20.1127
si
Sig. .104
o
n
1


Size = 34.410.

guaranteed.
WP
Tukey HSDa,b
PROCES Subset for

S alpha = 0.05
N 1
d NO 57 22.9298
i
m MAYB 18 24.2778
e E
n
YES 71 24.8028
si
o Sig. .063
n
1

101
Size = 34.410.

guaranteed.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=GENDER STUDY AGE DURATION PROCESS PA TI AOC WP
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Notes
Comments

av
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

Data File
102
Cases Used Statistics for each pair of

variables are based on all the
cases with valid data for that
pair.
Syntax CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=GENDER
STUDY AGE DURATION
PROCESS PA TI AOC WP
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Std.
Mean Deviation N
GENDER 1.4452 .49870 146
STUDY 1.6233 .48623 146
AGE 1.3767 .68622 146
DURATI 1.6096 .95681 146

ON
PROCESS 1.6370 .69362 146
PA 39.7945 6.60503 146
103
TI 27.9726 6.68704 146
AOC 19.4247 3.45780 146
WP 24.0068 3.50270 146
Correlations
GENDE DURATIO PROCES

R STUDY AGE N S
GENDER Pearson 1 .128 -.211* -.211* .092

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .010 .010 .271
N 146 146 146 146 146
STUDY Pearson .128 1 -.026 -.111 .042

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .751 .183 .618
N 146 146 146 146 146
AGE Pearson -.211* -.026 1 .688** -.203*

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .751 .000 .014
N 146 146 146 146 146
DURATIO Pearson -.211* -.111 .688** 1 -.309**

N Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .183 .000 .000
N 146 146 146 146 146
PROCESS Pearson .092 .042 -.203* -.309** 1

Correlation
104
Sig. (2-tailed) .271 .618 .014 .000
N 146 146 146 146 146
PA Pearson -.043 .019 .002 -.073 -.110

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .604 .823 .981 .383 .187
N 146 146 146 146 146
TI Pearson -.015 -.107 -.171* -.181* -.004

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .858 .198 .040 .029 .965
N 146 146 146 146 146
AOC Pearson -.074 .108 .089 -.037 -.119

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .372 .194 .285 .657 .151
N 146 146 146 146 146
WP Pearson -.112 -.059 .082 .030 -.147

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .177 .478 .324 .723 .077
N 146 146 146 146 146
Correlations
PA TI AOC WP
GENDER Pearson -.043 -.015 -.074 -.112

Correlation
105
Sig. (2-tailed) .604 .858 .372 .177
N 146 146 146 146
STUDY Pearson .019 -.107 .108 -.059

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .823 .198 .194 .478
N 146 146 146 146
AGE Pearson .002 -.171* .089 .082

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .981 .040 .285 .324
N 146 146 146 146
DURATIO Pearson -.073 -.181* -.037 .030

N Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .383 .029 .657 .723
N 146 146 146 146
PROCESS Pearson -.110 -.004 -.119 -.147

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .187 .965 .151 .077
N 146 146 146 146
PA Pearson 1 -.032 .619** .427**

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .703 .000 .000
N 146 146 146 146
TI Pearson -.032 1 .111 .306**

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .703 .180 .000
N 146 146 146 146
106
AOC Pearson .619** .111 1 .533**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .180 .000
N 146 146 146 146
WP Pearson .427** .306** .533** 1

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 146 146 146 146
107

Satisfaction With Performance Appraisal System As A Tool To Enhance Employee Outcome

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satisfaction With Performance Appraisal System As A Tool To Enhance Employee Outcome

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Major Research Project

Satisfaction With Performance Appraisal System As A Tool

Towards Partial Fulfilment of Requirements of

Master of Business Administration Degree

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

LASS MBA 4thSem.

Date: Avani Sharma

Place: Vani Gangil

Dr. Gaurav Jaiswal

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................. 1

Chapter 2 Research Methodology ............................ 9

Employees’ performance is determined by a number of factors like work performance,

In addition to formal face-to-face interviews, a comprehensive appraisal process involves casual

The effects of P.A are generally used to

 Measure the overall employee’s effectiveness in doing particular job.

1.1.1 Work Performance

1.1.2 Affective organizational commitment

Furthermore, performance appraisal increases employees' perceptions of value and their

1.1.3 Turnover intention

Individuals' estimated (subjective) possibility of permanently quitting the organisation at some

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

An empirical study on the impact of performance appraisal on attitudinal outcomes and

According to the study by W.A.S.Weerakkody and W.G.S.Mahalekamge, performance appraisal

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. Satisfaction with performance appraisal is positively affecting Work Performance.

2.2 THE SAMPLE DESIGN:

POPULATION- Included respondents for Gwalior region only.

SAMPLE SIZE- Sample size for 150 respondents.

TIME FRAME- From March 2022- May 2022.

2.3 TOOLS WHICH WERE USED FOR DATA COLLECTION:

2.4 TOOLS WHICH WERE USED FOR DATA ANALYSIS:

The results of the questionnaire, which is used to measuring Affective Organizational

On taking Performance Appraisal as independent variable and Turnover Intention as

Model Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-

d1 .032a .001 -.006 6.70682 2.184

Model Sum of Mean

1 Regression 6.567 1 6.567 .146 .703a

Residual 6477.323 144 44.981

Total 6483.890 145

Model Unstandardized Standardized

1 (Constant) 29.255 3.401 8.601 .000

PA -.032 .084 -.032 -.382 .703

The impact of independent variables to dependent variable is indicated by standardized

On taking Performance Appraisal as independent variable and Affective Organisational

Model Adjusted R Std. Error of the

b. Dependent Variable: AOC

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 664.170 1 664.170 89.425 .000a

Residual 1069.501 144 7.427

Total 1733.671 145

b. Dependent Variable: AOC

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 6.530 1.382 4.725 .000

PA .324 .034 .619 9.457 .000

a. Dependent Variable: AOC

The impact of independent variables to dependent variable is indicated by standardized

On taking Performance Appraisal as independent variable and Turnover Intention as

Model Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 323.807 1 323.807 32.043 .000a

Residual 1455.186 144 10.105

Total 1778.993 145

DURATION Pearson Correlation -.211* -.111 .688 1 -.309