The International Journal of Human Resource Management: Please Scroll Down For Article

This article was downloaded by: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles]
On: 6 April 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911796916]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713702518
Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: a comparative study on

Indian banks
A. Shrivastavaa; P. Puranga
a
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India
Online publication date: 23 February 2011
To cite this Article Shrivastava, A. and Purang, P.(2011) 'Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: a comparative
study on Indian banks', The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 3, 632 — 647
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.543639
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.543639
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 22, No. 3, January 2011, 632–647
Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: a comparative study

on Indian banks
A. Shrivastava and P. Purang*
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India
Performance appraisal is the most critical human resource practice and an
indispensable part of every organization; however, the practice continues to generate
Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 04:06 6 April 2011
dissatisfaction among employees and is often viewed as unfair and ineffective. Indian
banking sector is one of the biggest and fastest growing financial service sectors.
The post-liberalization era has witnessed significant changes in the structure and
operations of banks operating in India. Arrival of new private and foreign banks has
given a cause to public sector banks to be more competitive, effective and innovative in
their approach. Past researches have compared public and private sector banks and
have indicated that new private sector banks are outscoring public sector banks in terms
of technical and economic efficiency parameters. However, no study could be found
that compared public and private banks in India on fairness perceptions of performance
appraisal system. Therefore, this research studied the differences between public and
private sector banks with respect to perception of fairness of the performance appraisal
system and performance appraisal satisfaction. Perception of fairness of the
performance appraisal system has been studied through nine factors. The study used
independent samples t-test and qualitative analysis to study the mean differences
between the two banks. Results indicated that private sector bank employees perceive
greater fairness and satisfaction with their performance appraisal system as compared
to public sector bank employees.
Keywords: perception of fairness; performance appraisal; public and private sector
bank
Introduction
Performance appraisal is one of the most critical human resource (HR) practices
administered in organizations by which supervisors evaluate the performance of
subordinates organizations use appraisal ratings to make pay and promotion decisions,
identify training and development needs and motivate employees (Cascio and Bernardin
1981). Performance appraisal is one of the most widely researched topics in
industrial/organizational psychology (Murphy and Cleveland 1991). However, in spite
of the attention and resources paid to the practice, it continues to generate extreme
dissatisfaction among employees and employers alike and is often viewed as inaccurate,
unfair, and political (Church 1985; Skarlicki and Folger 1997; Rao 2004). In their review
of performance appraisal, Bretz, Milkovich and Read (1992) indicated that perceived
fairness of the appraisal system has emerged as the most important issue to be faced by
*Corresponding author: Email: purang@hss.iitb.ac.in
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.543639
http://www.informaworld.com
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 633
managers. Concerns about perceptions of fairness of appraisal arise from the evaluation of
the outcomes received (distributive fairness), the procedures used to allocate those
outcomes (procedural fairness), and the way in which the decision-making procedures are
communicated by the authority (interpersonal fairness; Smither 1998). Distributive
fairness, procedural fairness, and interpersonal fairness are integral components of
‘organizational justice,’ which may be defined as the study of fairness at work (Byrne and
Cropanzano 2001). Perception of fairness holds an important place in organizations as it
prevents negative consequences like theft, sabotage, withdrawal, and other disruptive
behaviors and enhances positive outcomes like citizenship behavior, organizational
commitment, and job satisfaction (Adams 1963; McFarlin and Sweeney 1992; Moorman,
Niehoff and Organ 1993). For this study, Greenberg’s (1993) conceptualization of
organizational justice has been used, in which he crosscut two types of justice dimensions
(procedural and distributive) with two determinants of justice (social and structural).
It resulted in four-factor structure of justice (systemic, configural, interpersonal, and
informational). This conceptualization was later used by Thurston (2001) in his study to
address the specific aspects of performance appraisal. The success and effectiveness of any
appraisal system largely depends on employees reactions to important aspects of the
appraisal process (Bernardin and Beatty 1984; Cardy and Dobbins 1994). It is now a
widely accepted fact that perceptions of fairness influence the way people think, feel, and
act on the job (Bies and Shapiro 1987). Hence, perception of fairness of the performance
appraisal system would influence positive affective reactions like performance appraisal
satisfaction (Thurston 2001; Cook and Crossman 2004). Procedures used to appraise
performance, and the manner in which performance-related information is communicated
play an integral role in shaping employees’ satisfaction with appraisal process (Keeping
and Levy 2000; Jawahar 2007).
Employee performance appraisal is an indispensable part of every organization
including banks in India. Indian banking sector is one of the oldest, biggest, and fastest
growing financial service sectors which has seen tremendous progress post liberalization.
Arrival of new banks, robust growth of domestic economy, rapid growth of the Indian
corporate sector, technological deployments, and rising household incomes are some of
the factors contributing to its growth. Making international presence, attracting and
retaining talents, and overhaul of HR practices are some of the challenges being faced by
banks in India. The Indian banking system can be broadly categorized into scheduled and
non-scheduled commercial banks. Scheduled commercial banks can be further classified
into public and private sector banks (old and new) and foreign banks. Over a period of
time, differences have been observed between public and private sector banks on various
parameters.
Differences between public and private sector banks

Public and private sector banks differ from each other in terms of structure, operations, and
efficiency. The public sector banks are largely regulated by the government, whereas the
private sector banks are regulated by the private bodies. Structurally, public sector banks
have a wide network of branches largely concentrated in the rural and semi-urban areas as
contrasted to private sector banks which are mainly concentrated in urban and
metropolitan areas. Public and private sector banks differ with respect to their background
and work culture. It has been observed that the work culture of public sector banks was
based on the socioeconomic responsibility concept, in which profitability was secondary.
They were and are still involved in variety of non-profit social sector welfare activities.
634 A. Shrivastava and P. Purang
On the other hand, private sector banks work toward profitability (Bajpai and Srivastava
2004).
Being government-owned institutions, public sector banks have to operate under
constraints which affect their efficiency. For instance, their staff quality suffers as they can
neither lay off poorly performing employees nor can offer high salaries to attract
well-qualified people. Private banks (especially, the new private sector banks) on the other
hand have grown aggressively by using highly competitive and innovative strategies,
especially with their strong emphasis on information technology (IT). As a result, private
sector banks have made considerable progress in a very short span of time. Kumar (2005)
in his study found that organizational climate (OC) of new private sector banks and foreign
banks in India was perceived as significantly better vis-à-vis public sector banks.
The difference was seen on leadership, motivation, communication, interaction influence,
decision making, goal setting, and control process aspects of OC. Recent SWOT analysis
of private banks (Singh and Kohli 2006) revealed that new private sector banks are
different from the traditional banks (public sector banks and old private sector banks) and
their strength lies in the following areas:
. Most of the branches of private sector banks are fully computerized and support
core banking solutions.
. Private sector banks support an efficient payment system and most of the banks are
free from bureaucratic work environment.
. In contrast to their public sector counter parts, operational efficiency is maintained
at their highest level, because private sector banks provide a smooth working
environment to their employees.
. Private sector banks do not have bureaucratic environment and therefore, enjoy a
high level of autonomy, which facilitates faster decision making.
. With higher automation to their work, private sector banks are better at innovating
new customized products and services and thus are high on customer satisfaction.
. Private sector banks have more responsive organizational structure as compared to
public sector banks which leads to better resolution of customer problems.
. With full computerization, private sector banks offer cost-effective services such
as automated teller machines, electronic fund transfer, Internet banking with
much ease.
McKinsey & Company (2007), in their study, highlighted the clear divide between the
performance of attackers (new private and foreign banks) and incumbents (public sector
and old private sector banks). It indicates that in between 2000 and 2007, attackers have
increased assets from 12 to 26%, profits from 21 to 32%, and market capitalization from
37 to 49%. Apart from this, the study posits that attackers also excel in corporate
leadership, marketing and sales, distribution efficiency, IT, credit policy, and skills as
compared to incumbents (McKinsey & Company 2007).
Organization’s success depends on how productive its employees are. Thus, employee
productivity becomes an important yardstick to measure organization’s performance. In
one such study, Kumar and Sreeramulu (2007) compared the employee productivity
(business per employee and profit per employee) and employee cost ratios (employee cost
to total business, employee cost to total assets, and employee cost to operating expenses)
between the traditional banks (public sector and old private sector banks) and modern
banks (foreign and new private sector banks) from 1997 to 2008. The results indicated that
the performance of the modern banks (foreign and new private sector banks) has been
much superior than the traditional banks (public sector and old private sector banks).
Employee motivation in the organization can be viewed from increased employee

productivity ratios. Motivated employees are more productive (Kovach 1980). Therefore,
it becomes important for organizations to look for and groom those factors which may
make both employees and organizations more productive.
Furthermore, differences have been observed with respect to performance appraisal
practice. New private banks are introducing newer approaches to regulate and measure
their employees’ performance. Appraisal mechanisms like, 360-degree feedback and
balanced score card (BSC) are being used in new private sector banks, whereas most of the
public sector banks are still adhering to the traditional and highly confidential way of
doing appraisals (Juneja, Shankar and Bhattacharya 2007). Apart from that, performance
appraisals are not linked with pay and promotion decisions in public sector banks and thus
are not perceived as motivating by employees. It has been regarded as one of the processes
generating maximum dissatisfaction among employees (Rao 2004). A kind of general

apathy has been observed among employees and employers toward performance appraisal
and the need to conduct employees’ perception studies has been felt (Varkhey 1994).
Furthermore, there is a dearth of studies which relate performance appraisal with issues of
fairness in the Indian context (Agrawal and Gupta 2007). Therefore, the main objective of
the study was:
To study the differences between public and private sector banks with respect to
perception of fairness of the performance appraisal system and employees’ satisfaction
with performance appraisals.
Further, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1: Employees’ perception of fairness of the nine factors of their appraisal
system would be significantly different between the two banks.
Since different banks follow different approaches toward the appraisal, it is further
assumed that employees’ affective reactions would also be different in public and private
sector banks. Hence, it is also hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2: Employees’ satisfaction with the performance appraisal system would be
significantly different between public and private sector banks.
Perception of fairness of the appraisal system has been defined by the following nine
factors (Thurston 2001):
Setting performance expectations: It refers to the importance of setting performance
expectations at the beginning of the performance period. It captures the nature of
performance criteria; their relevance and flexibility.
Rater confidence: It refers to rater’s level of knowledge about the performance appraisal
system, ratee’s job, and performance levels.
Clarifying expectations: It refers to raters clarifying performance expectations and the
evaluative standards to the ratees before and during appraisal.
Providing feedback: It refers to the raters’ ability to provide clear, timely, frequent, and
constructive feedback to their subordinates.
Accuracy of ratings: It talks about the appropriateness of the ratings which is based on
employee’s efforts, abilities, and quality and quantity of his/her performance.
Explaining rating decisions: It refers to the raters’ ability to explain rating decisions to the
ratees clearly and effectively. It also involves raters explaining to employees about
bringing performance improvement.
Seeking appeals: It refers to the extent of freedom given to employees to challenge
performance ratings and to express feelings, especially of discomfiture.
Concern over ratings: It refers to the concern that ratings should be a true reflection of
employee’s performance that ought to be based on employee’s effort and contributions
rather than on his/her personality.
Treatment by rater: It refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment received by the ratees
from their supervisor/s. It conveys the importance of sensitivity, dignity, and respect in
supervision.
The satisfaction with the appraisal system has been defined as the positive affective
reactions of employees toward the performance appraisal system.
Method
Sample organizations
The data were collected from two banks belonging to public sector (Bank A) and a private
sector (Bank B), respectively. Purposive sampling method was used to select different
banks with different performance appraisal practices. Other public and private sector
banks were also approached for the purpose of data collection; however, final selection of
the banks was made on the basis of the permission granted by the banks to collect
information and data. The two banks selected for the study are the leading banks in their
respective sectors. Both the banks have their head offices in India with multiple branches
spread across the globe.
Participants
The sample consisted of a total of 340 bank employees from both public and private sector
banks situated in India. All the bank employees were serving at the middle-level
management. The middle managers were chosen as they are the front-line managers
having good exposure of bank and its policies and practices. There were 230 bank
employees from a public sector bank; with the majority being male (73.04%). Mostly, the
sample was between the ages of 40 and 50 years (41.07%), with 39.8% between 25 and
40 years, and 19.04% between 50 and 60 years. The average age was 42.7 years and
average tenure was 16.9 years. From a private sector bank, 110 bank employees
participated with the majority being male (70.09%). Mostly, the sample was between the
ages of 25 and 40 years (82.05%), with 17.9% between 40 and 50 years. The average age
was 34.89 years and average tenure was 11.02 years.
Procedure
Information on performance appraisal practice was collected by interviewing the senior
HR managers of both the banks in the first phase. To structure interview, questions were
divided into four broad categories (Bretz et al. 1992); (1) system design and
characteristics, (2) system management, (3) important appraisal uses and (4) performance
distribution. ‘System design and characteristics’ dimension includes issues such as
appraisal construction and development, appraisal approach and format, raters, and rating
sources, and performance criteria. ‘System management’ dimension is concerned about
appraisal frequency, appraisal-related decision making, rater training and rater
accountability. Appraisal use includes concerns about developmental and administrative
uses of appraisals, whereas ‘performance distribution’ talks about differentiating
employee performance into certain levels. However, managers were free to provide any
extra information about appraisals. Information collected has been provided in Table 1.
The second phase of the study involved distributing questionnaires to the bank
employees (middle-level managers). For this purpose, 18 branches of the public sector
bank and 10 branches of the private sector bank were visited. Employees were personally
approached and given the questionnaire. In many cases, respondents were called in the
conference room and briefed about the study and were requested to fill the questionnaire
and confidentiality was assured. In total, 358 questionnaires were distributed; out of which
340 could be utilized as 18 questionnaires that were half filled. The response rate came out
to be 94.97%. This study also used an open-ended questionnaire method in which
participants were free to respond the way they wanted to. Employees were asked, ‘how do
they perceive their performance appraisal system in the current organization.’ For this
purpose, 42 middle-level managers from public sector and 20 middle-level managers from
private sector bank participated in the study. This group of participants was not given
standardized questionnaires earlier in this study. The questionnaires were personally

distributed to and collected from the managers from different branches of the respective
banks.
Measurement
Nine dimensions of performance appraisal fairness were measured by a 56-item scale.
The scale was originally developed by Thurston (2001), which was later modified by
Walsh (2003) in her study, e.g. ‘respect in supervision’ and ‘sensitivity in supervision’
dimensions from Thurston’s scale was clubbed to form ‘treatment by rater.’ This study
used the same version (Walsh 2003) with little adaptations to suit the Indian context, like,
the term ‘performance planning and review (PPR) system’ was replaced with performance
appraisal system. All the items were modified to fit into the 5-point Likert scale format
(1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree). Item no. 45 and 46 were reverse coded.
Table 1. Differences in performance appraisal system of the public and private sector banks.
Performance appraisal
system: features Public sector bank Private sector bank
Appraisal design/format ACR BSC
Management by objectives Online system
(MBO) based approach
Manually done
Frequency Annually Biannually
Appraisal purpose/s, Promotion (partially linked) Pay and promotion
administrative, fully linked)
developmental
Pay (not linked) Training and development
(fully linked)
Training and development
(partially linked)
Communication/feedback Closed system, one-way Open system, open,
communication two-way communication
Appeal system Only for promotion- Robust system, employees
related issues may challenge their
appraisal-related ratings
Post-appraisal attitude No Yes
surveys
Accountability issues Not addressed Addressed
Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension was as follows, setting expectations ¼ 0.94, rater’s
confidence ¼ 0.94, clarifying expectations ¼ 0.93, providing feedback ¼ 0.92, accuracy
of rating ¼ 0.91, explaining rating decision ¼ 0.91, seeking appeals ¼ 0.87 concern over
rating ¼ 0.75, and treatment by rater ¼ 0.89.
Performance appraisal system satisfaction was measured by the items modified from
scales by Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison and Carroll (1995) and Tang and Sarsfield-
Baldwin (1996). Seven items have been taken for this study. Items 4 and 5 are reverse
coded. It is a 5-point rating scale with 5 ¼ strongly agree; 4 ¼ agree; 3 ¼ neither agree
nor disagree; 2 ¼ disagree; and, 1 ¼ strongly disagree. Cronbach’s alpha of this scale is
0.85.
Results
Quantitative analysis: independent samples t-test
An independent sample t-test was computed to test the mean differences in the nine factors
depicting employees’ perception of fairness of performance appraisal and performance
appraisal satisfaction of the two banks under study. The findings indicate that there is a
significant mean difference between the two groups with respect to most of the variables.
Levene’s test has been used to assess the equality of variance in different samples.
The resulting p-value of Levene’s test in most of the cases is less than critical value
(i.e. 0.05) indicating that there is a difference between the variances in the population.
Significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to most of the
fairness dimensions (seven out of nine). Results in Tables 2 and 3 indicate that private
sector bank employees (i.e. Bank B, N ¼ 110) perceive their expectations to be better set
(MB ¼ 25.26, MA ¼ 20.21, t ¼ 18.746, p , 0.001) and explained (MB ¼ 24.8,
MA ¼ 18.3, t ¼ 20.17, p , 0.001), rate their raters to be more knowledgeable
(MB ¼ 19.1, MA ¼ 15.3, t ¼ 13.185, p , 0.001), find feedback procedure to be more
Table 2. Two-group mean difference.
Standard Standard
Variables Group N Mean deviation error mean
Setting expectations Bank B 110 25.26 2.35 0.225
Bank A 230 20.21 2.23 0.147
Rater’s confidence Bank B 110 19.13 1.74 0.165
Bank A 230 15.33 3.57 0.235
Clarifying expectations Bank B 110 24.84 2.26 0.215
Bank A 230 18.03 3.94 0.259
Providing feedback Bank B 110 15.05 2.61 0.248
Bank A 230 12.99 3.30 0.217
Accuracy of rating Bank B 110 18.44 3.95 0.376
Bank A 230 16.13 3.92 0.258
Explaining rating decision Bank B 110 19.14 2.07 0.197
Bank A 230 15.16 3.58 0.235
Concern over rating Bank B 110 21.81 2.61 0.248
Bank A 230 22.32 2.91 0.192
Seeking appeals Bank B 110 24.53 1.87 0.178
Bank A 230 14.20 2.64 0.174
Treatment by rater Bank B 110 35.98 5.39 0.514
Bank A 230 35.68 5.80 0.382
Performance appraisal satisfaction Bank B 110 26.95 2.16 0.206
Bank A 230 21.89 2.68 0.177
Table 3. Independent samples t-test.
Levene’s test for

equality of variances
Variables (N ¼ 340) F Significance t df Significance (two-tailed) Mean difference Standard error difference
Setting expectations 1.291 0.257 18.75 202.05 0.000 5.05 0.269
Rater’s confidence 99.490 0.000 13.18 337.85 0.000 3.79 0.287
Clarifying expectations 53.822 0.000 20.17 327.21 0.000 6.80 0.337
Providing feedback 7.774 0.006 6.24 265.83 0.000 2.06 0.330
Accuracy of rating 4.782 0.029 5.06 213.28 0.000 2.32 0.457
Seeking appeals 12.021 0.001 41.47 290.28 0.000 3.98 0.307
Explaining rating decision 62.971 0.000 12.92 325.76 0.000 10.34 0.249
Concern over rating 2.532 0.093 2 1.68 237.39 0.106 2 0.53 0.314
Treatment by rater 0.847 0.358 0.467 229.59 0.641 0.29 0.640
Performance appraisal satisfaction 14.557 0.000 18.61 261.35 0.000 5.06 0.272
Note: All bold values are significant at p , 0.001.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
639
robust (MB ¼ 15.0, MA ¼ 12.9, t ¼ 6.241, p , 0.001), ratings to be more accurate

(MB ¼ 18.4, MA ¼ 16.13, t ¼ 5.065, p , 0.001) and well explained (MB ¼ 19.1,
MA ¼ 15.1, t ¼ 41.471, p , 0.001), and feel more positive about the appeal system
(MB ¼ 24.5, MA ¼ 14.2, t ¼ 12.925, p , 0.001) as compared to public sector bank
employees (Bank A, N ¼ 230). No difference could be found for the dimension treatment
by rater and concern over rating indicating that employees of both the banks hold more or
less similar perceptions about these two dimensions. The results also indicated that private
sector bank employees (Bank B, N ¼ 110) expressed significantly more satisfaction with
performance appraisal than public sector bank employees (MB ¼ 26.8, MA ¼ 21.9,
t ¼ 18.61, p , 0.001). The quantitative results indicated that both the hypotheses have
been accepted.
Qualitative analysis
The qualitative analysis of the data was done using the method of content analysis. For this
study, the method of nominal quantification was used. It involved the process of assigning
numerals and assigning ranks to the objects of the content analysis. Participants were
asked in an open-ended questionnaire, ‘How do they perceive “Performance Appraisal”
practice in their organization?’ The responses obtained from the qualitative analysis
supported the quantitative results.
In the case of public sector bank, the first item generated variety of responses from
the participants that were broadly clubbed into four most frequently reported themes:
(1) appraisal as a developmental and motivational tool, (2) appraisal unfairness,
(3) appraisal design and its conductance and (4) raters’ issues. Detailed description of the
qualitative data has been provided in Table 4. In case of private sector bank, the first
question generated responses that were broadly clubbed into four major themes:
(1) appraisal as a critical HR practice, (2) appraisal unfairness, (3) stress associated with
the appraisal and (4) importance of raters. Detailed description of the qualitative data has
been provided in Table 5.
Discussion
Both quantitative as well as qualitative results indicate that employees’ perception of
fairness of their appraisal system is significantly different between the two banks and
private sector bank employees perceive performance appraisal factors, namely, setting
performance expectations, rater’s confidence, clarifying expectations, providing feedback,
accuracy of rating, seeking appeals, and explaining rating decisions to be fairer as
compared to public sector bank employees. All the mean values were significantly higher.
The results also indicate that private sector bank employees have significantly higher
satisfaction with the performance appraisal system than the public sector bank employees.
Appraisal dimension setting performance expectations formally initiates the appraisal
process and deals with setting performance expectations and goals at the beginning of the
performance period. Setting goals has been suggested as one of the most important
motivational forces influencing people in organizations (Wood and Locke 1990). Having a
clear-cut goal enhances performance, because goal brings in clarity about what type and
level of performance is expected. In this study, the performance appraisal system in private
sector bank requires that employee goals and targets are clearly set at the beginning of the
performance period. Results from the qualitative analysis indicate that employees possess
goal clarity and show confidence about what they have to achieve; to quote one employee,
Table 4. Themes identified for public sector bank.
Themes Frequencya Percentage

1. Appraisal as a developmental and motivational tool 37/42 88
2. Unfairness of the appraisal practice 31/42 73.8
(a) Highly subjective process/lacks transparency 28/42 66
(b) Raters’ biases/appraisal politics (nepotism, sycophancy) 25/42 59.5
(c) Unfair distribution of the ratings 22/42 52.3
(d)Absence of strong ‘appeal’ system 19/42 45.2
3. Appraisal design and appraisal administration 25/42 59.5
(a) Appraisal design is very old and highly confidential 22/42 52.3
(b) Newer approaches like online PMS or 360 degree appraisal 20/42 47.6
should be introduced
(c) Less time is spent on the appraisal process. It is treated as a 19/42 45.2
mere ritual by supervisors and subordinates
(d) Appraisal frequency may be increased, biannually 18/42 42.8
(e) Self-appraisal should be given due consideration 16/42 38.09
(f) Differential rewards should be based on appraisal 16/42 38.09
(g) Appraisals are hardly linked with promotions 15/42 35.7
(h) Appraisals should be aptitude/interests based and not just 13/42 30.9
trait based
(i) More active participation from employees’ side should 12/42 28.5
be allowed
(j) Appraisal should be seriously used to chalk out career paths 10/42 23.8
and training programs
4. Raters’ issues 16/42 38.09
(a) Raters are not trained enough to conduct the appraisal 15/42 35.7
(b) Raters do not give ‘constructive and quality feedback’; 13/42 30.09
feedback should guide future growth and development
(c) Very formal and hierarchical relationship 9/42 21.4
a
Frequency of the response.
‘Right from the beginning of the financial year, one knows what one is supposed to
achieve; performance targets are well set and explained.’ The appraisal process in the
private sector bank constitutes ‘BSC’ to evaluate its employees, wherein, along with
financial indicators, there is a clear segregation of the performance areas and targets to be
achieved, namely, customer perspectives, internal business processes, organizational
growth, and learning and innovation. It gives employees a sense of direction and goal
clarity regarding ‘what to do and how to do.’ As employees’ compensation and growth in
private sector bank are largely contingent on performance, paying attention to the targets
and their subsequent achievement is very important. In case of public sector bank, 38.1%
employees have reported ‘lack of role and goal clarity’ in the qualitative analysis. Also,
45.2% employees feel that performance appraisal is treated as a ‘mere ritual with no
seriousness towards it.’ Also, there has been no change in the appraisal format of the
public sector bank; it has been continuing with the graphic rating format to measure
qualitative traits of employees. This type of format does not consist of any behavioral
observations. Due to this, it misses out on evaluating the actual factors affecting job
performance and is thus seen as ‘unfair’ and ‘subjective’ by the employees. Also, it has
been reported by the private sector bank employees that goals and performance
expectations are decided jointly by supervisors and subordinates. Research reports that
people better accept goals that they have been involved in setting, than goals that have
been assigned by the raters, and they work harder for their attainment (Latham and Locke
1988). It may be due to the fact that employees ‘psychologically rationalize’ their
Table 5. Themes identified in private sector bank.
Themes Frequencya Percentage

1. Critical HR practice 18/20 90
(a) Performance appraisal is a well-stretched out, systematic, 16/20 80
and serious activity
(b) Right from the beginning of financial year, one knows what 15/20 75
one is supposed to achieve
(c) Performance targets are well set and explained 15/20 75
(d) Both supervisors and subordinates take keen interest in 14/20 70
this process
(e) Performance appraisal is very critical and motivating as 14/20 70
promotion, pay, and benefits depend on it
(f) Quality of feedback is good. Feedback is used to chalk 13/20 65

out future growth plans
(g) PA brings improvement and guides future career paths 11/20 55
(h) Efficient online system 10/20 50
(i) Performance appraisal paves way for future training 10/20 50
programs
(j) One is free to discuss one’s evaluation freely with 9/20 45
one’s supervisor
(k) Presence of appeal system 7/20 35
2. Unfairness of the appraisal practice 14/20 70
(a) Favoritism/departmental politics 13/20 65
(b) Unfair distribution of ratings/rewards 12/20 60
3. Stress inducing 10/20 50
(a) It is very detailed, time consuming and little harsh sometimes. 10/20 50
4. Important role of raters 7/20 35
a
Frequency of the response.
decisions to set those goals (Greenberg and Baron 1995) and thus find it hard to deny them.
In their studies, McConkie (1979) and Edwards (1983) emphasized the use of more
effective participative, goal-oriented performance appraisal as against traditional
performance appraisal in which there is lesser or no participation. Public sector bank
still follows the traditional way of doing appraisal, where employees’ participation is kept
at a minimum.
Furthermore, it has been observed that public sector bank employees have expressed
less confidence in their raters as compared to private sector bank employees. To quote one
public sector bank employee, ‘Supervisors/raters do not know how to conduct the process;
they do it for the sake of doing.’ Since appraisal is a complex process with embedded
interpersonal dynamics, its successful conductance demands raters’ attention, knowledge
and skill. Therefore, lack of training in conducting appraisals might be one of the reasons
for raters’ disinterest in the process. Another reason might be disregarding appraisals’
importance and looking at it as a routine process and thus, not paying adequate attention
toward ratees’ job and performance throughout the year. Private sector bank employees
have shown greater confidence on their raters as compared to public sector bank
employees. Statements such as, ‘supervisors take keen interest in the process,’ ‘if your
immediate supervisor is supportive, entire appraisal activity is easy otherwise vice-versa’
indicate employees’ confidence on their raters. It has been found that raters play a crucial
role in the success and failure of any appraisal system (Pooyan and Eberhardt 1989). In his
study, Jawahar (2006) found that if raters are knowledgeable of subordinate’s job, and job
performance and provide guidance to their subordinates, subordinate’s satisfaction with
supervisors increases. It is important to have confidence and trust in one’s rater/supervisor

as supervisors are seen as embodiment of the organization, so when employee feels
content and confident about one’s supervisors/raters, the same feeling also spreads to the
entire organization (Lind and Tyler 1988).
It is further observed that private sector bank employees perceive appraisal factors
providing feedback and explaining rating decisions to be fairer than public sector bank
employees. Providing feedback and explaining rating decisions are crucial features of
appraisal process, as they bring purpose and transparency to the appraisal process. Both
the factors are informational and communicative processes involving interaction between
supervisors and subordinates. In this study, public sector bank employees have reported
that, ‘Supervisors maintain a distance and seldom involve employees in the appraisal
feedback/discussions.’ Performance appraisal in public sector bank is known as annual
confidential report (ACR) and as the name suggests, it is highly secretive in its approach
wherein final reports are not shown to and discussed with employees. On the other hand,
private sector bank boasts of its robust feedback culture, (75% employees show agreement
in the qualitative analysis). Studies on Indian culture and mode of leadership may be
helpful in explaining this observed trend. Studies indicate that the Indian society is
characterized by a culture of high power distance between superiors and subordinates
(Sabharwal 1995; Gopalan and Rivera 1997). Therefore, managers prefer to adopt
authoritarian and hierarchical forms of management and exert their influence by
maintaining distance with subordinates and following top-down mode of communication,
wherein supervisors speak and subordinates listen. Furthermore, public sector bank
employees have expressed their concern regarding quality of feedback, as indicated in the
qualitative analysis, 31% employees feel that, ‘the quality of feedback should be improved
and it should be used to guide future growth in the organization.’ Feedback is considered
effective when there is a strong link between performance improvement and valued
outcomes (London and Smither 2002). Results indicate that public sector bank is not
delivering on these aspects. On the other hand, in case of private sector bank, 80%
employees have stated that appraisal is a well stretched out activity which is used to guide
future growth plans. Public sector bank employees have also expressed their
discontentment against appraisal frequency which is an annual affair, whereas in the
case of private sector bank, it happens biannually. It has been reported that appraisal
systems that provide formal feedback once a year are more likely to be feedback deficient
(Bernardin and Beatty 1984).
Appraisal ratings are important in the appraisal context as administrative and
developmental decisions are based on them. This study indicates that private sector bank
employees consider their ratings to be more accurate as compared to public sector bank
employees. Since in public sector banks, appraisal ratings alone do not serve important
administrative and developmental purposes, and thus, taken lightly. Public sector bank
employees have expressed their discontentment due to various reasons, like, raters’ biases
and lack of regard for hard work and merit. Lack of rater’s training can be the reason
behind biased ratings. Biases may be cognitive owing to the memory decay or changes in
information processing ability of the rater or it may be deliberate owing to the social or
contextual factors, collectively called as ‘politics.’ In this study, both the banks have
talked of politics and presence of trends like favoritism and sycophancy. There is some
evidence that raters deliberately distort subordinates’ performance ratings for political
reasons, like manager provides inflated ratings to their subordinates in order to project
his/her good image or to avoid any confrontation (Longenecker, Gioria and Sims 1987;
Fried and Tiegs 1995).
Lastly, dimension ‘seeking appeal’ talks about the ‘voice’ provided to the employees
to challenge the ratings and other decisions received from the supervisor/s. It is an
‘opportunity’ given to the employees to put forth their views, refute the rating decisions
and express feelings; especially of discomfiture. In this study, it has been found that
private sector organization talks of strong appeal system, whereby an employee may
challenge the appraisal-related decisions. The ability to appeal a rating which is
considered unfair, inaccurate, or biased is an important component to ensure perceptions
of procedural fairness (Leventhal 1980; Cascio and Bernardin 1981; Greenberg 1986;
Alexander and Ruderman 1987; Murphy and Cleveland 1991). As indicated by 45.2%
employees, public sector bank does not have strong ‘appeal’ system. Lack of ‘voice’ and
‘control’ provided to the employees may be indicative of rigid and closed OC of Public
Sector Bank. In one such study, Kumar (2005) compared the OC of public sector, new
private sector, and foreign banks in India. The results indicated that the OC of new private
sector banks and foreign banks has been perceived as significantly better vis-à-vis public
sector banks on the following factors constructing OC: leadership, motivation,
communication, interaction influence, decision making, goal setting and control process.
Furthermore, the results indicate that private sector bank employees express higher
satisfaction with their performance appraisal system as compared to public sector bank
employees. It has been already demonstrated in this study that private sector bank
employees perceive their appraisal system to be fairer than public sector bank employees
on account of the following factors: (1) raters’ knowledge to conduct the process, (2) well-
set and explained performance expectations, (3) accurate ratings and well-explicated
rating decisions, (4) constructive feedback and (5) well-placed appeal system.
Aforementioned fairness factors connote ‘procedural’ as well as ‘distributive’ fairness
of the system. Research indicates that procedural and distributive justice factors have been
consistently correlated with employee’s positive affective reactions toward their
performance appraisal system (Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin 1996; Thurston 2001).
Hence, the perception of fairness of the performance appraisal system would impact the
affective and attitudinal reactions like satisfaction with the performance appraisals system
of the employees. The public sector bank employees cited unclear expectations about
goals, lack of feedback, rater’s biases, and ratings independent of actual performance, as
some of their perceptions of the performance appraisal system. These provide an
explanation to the low satisfaction with the performance appraisal system of the public
sector bank employees. Studies have found that the supervisor’s goal setting behavior, and
his/her relations with subordinates accounted for 53% of the variance in appraisal
satisfaction (Pooyan and Eberhardt 1989), and employees’ perception of their meaningful
role in the appraisal process enhances their satisfaction and acceptance of the system
(Roberts 2003). In the qualitative analysis, 75% private bank employees have mentioned
about well laid-out goals and supervisors’ involvement in the appraisal process. Also, in
contrast to public sector bank employees, private sector bank employees have indicated
their appraisal practice to be highly ‘participatory’ in its approach. In private sector bank,
employees’ pay and perks are performance based and tied with performance appraisal
system; differential wage structure enhances appraisal satisfaction for private bank
employees as they feel that one’s efforts and abilities are recognized, evaluated, valued,
and aptly rewarded (Miceli, Jung, Near and Greenberger 1991). Furthermore, transparent
and innovative online appraisal mechanism at private sector bank may account for greater
satisfaction as it lends certain control to the employees and generates feedback at regular
intervals. Also, the bank conducts time to time employee attitude surveys which may be
helpful in escalating employees’ satisfaction level, as it gives them the feeling that their
views are valued.
Conclusion and implications

The two banks differ from each other with respect to perception of performance appraisal
fairness. Seven out of nine appraisal fairness factors emerged as important differentiators;
it was found that private sector bank employees perceive appraisal factors setting
performance expectations, rater’s confidence, clarifying expectations, accuracy of rating,
providing feedback, explaining rating decisions, and seeking appeal to be fairer as
compared to public sector bank employees. The private bank employees are more satisfied
with their appraisal system as compared to the public sector bank employees.
Drawing from the above findings, it is suggested that there is an urgent need to
redesign the appraisal system in public sector bank. Changes in design/appraisal format
such as introduction of 360-degree feedback, BSC, or online appraisal can be given a
thought. More importantly, implementation of appraisal should be improved.
Improvements can be brought about by providing training to the raters regarding
conductance of fair appraisal by making them realize the importance of setting clear-cut
goals, giving accurate ratings, and providing clear and constructive feedback to the ratees.
Furthermore, public sector bank should try to build up strong appeal system to bring in
more transparency. The main purpose of appraisal should go beyond ‘measurement’ and
should be oriented towards ‘developing and motivating employees.’ Performance
appraisal should be better used as a need-assessment tool that may identify the
developmental needs of employees and may channelize organizations’ and employees’
energy toward achieving them. Furthermore, appraisal should not be taken lightly as it can
be used as a strategic tool that integrates individual goals with that of organizations’. Also,
it is recommended that the bank should employ a systematic approach to routinely collect
employee reaction data post appraisal. Private sector bank may also bring in more fairness
by training its raters to minimize appraisal-related politics. Furthermore, post-appraisal
counseling sessions may be introduced to attenuate appraisal-related anxieties of the
employees.
Regarding limitations of this study, the data collection was restricted to two banks. It is
suggested that in order to generalize the findings to the banking industry in India, the study
should be expanded to include other private and public sector banks along with foreign and
cooperative banks.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Prof. Meenakshi Gupta for her suggestions which have enriched this work.
References
Adams, J.S. (1963), ‘Toward an Understanding of Inequity,’ Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 422– 436.
Agrawal, M., and Gupta, S. (2007), ‘Effects of Perceived Procedural Fairness of Organizational
Human Resource Practices on the Relationship Between Facets of the Performance Appraisal
System and its Effectiveness,’ Indian Journal of Training and Development, 37, 2, 53 – 67.
Alexander, S., and Ruderman, M. (1987), ‘The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in
Organizational Behavior,’ Social Justice Research, 1, 177– 198.
Bajpai, N., and Srivastava, D. (2004), ‘Sectorial Comparison of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction
in Indian Banking Sector,’ Singapore Management Review, 26, 2, 89 – 99.
Bernardin, H.J., and Beatty, R.W. (1984), Performance Appraisal, Boston, MA: Kent Publishing.
Bies, R.J., and Shapiro, D.L. (1987), ‘Interaction Fairness Judgments: The Influence of Causal
Accounts,’ Social Justice Research, 1, 199– 218.
Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T., and Read, W. (1992), ‘The Current State of Performance Appraisal
Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications,’ Journal of Management, 18, 2,
321– 352.
Byrne, Z.S., and Cropanzano, R. (2001), ‘History of Organizational Justice: The Founders Speak,’
in Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice, ed. R. Cropanzano, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 3 – 26.
Cardy, R.L., and Dobbins, G.H. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives,
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Cascio, W.F., and Bernardin, H.J. (1981), ‘Implication of Performance Appraisal Litigation for
Personnel Decisions,’ Personnel Psychology, 34, 2, 211– 226.
Church, A.H. (1985), ‘From Both Sides Now, Performance Appraisals: Political Tools or Effective
Measures?’ The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 33, 57 – 64.

Cook, J., and Crossman, A. (2004), ‘Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal Systems: A Study of
Role Perceptions,’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 5, 526– 541.
Edwards, M.R. (1983), ‘Productivity Improvement Through Innovations in Performance Appraisal,’
Public Personnel Management, 12, 1, 13 – 24.
Fried, Y., and Tiegs, R.B. (1995), ‘Supervisor’s Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Differential
Relations with Performance Ratings of Subordinates and the Moderating Effect of screening
Ability,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 282– 291.
Gopalan, S., and Rivera, J.B. (1997), ‘Gaining Perspective on Indian Value Orientations:
Implications for Expatriate Managers,’ International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5, 2,
156– 179.
Greenberg, J. (1986), ‘Determinants of Perceived Fairness in Performance Evaluation,’ Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 340– 342.
Greenberg, J. (1993), ‘The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of
Organizational Justice,’ in Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management, ed. R. Cropanzano, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 79 – 103.
Greenberg, J., and Baron, R.A. (1995), Behaviour in Organizations (5th ed), Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Jawahar, I.M. (2006), ‘An Investigation of Potential Consequences of Satisfaction with Appraisal
Feedback,’ Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 2, 14– 28.
Jawahar, I.M. (2007), ‘The Influence of Perception of Fairness on Performance Appraisal
Reactions,’ Journal of Labor Research, 28, 735– 754.
Juneja, R., Shankar, A., and Bhattacharya, B. (2007), ‘Performance Appraisal Systems in Indian
Banks,’ Bank Quest, 78, 1, 37 – 42.
Keeping, L.M., and Levy, P.E. (2000), ‘Performance Appraisal Reactions: Measurement, Modeling,
and Method Bias,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 5, 708– 723.
Kovach, K.A. (1980), ‘Why Motivational Theories Don’t Work,’ SAM Advanced Management
Journal, 45, 2, 54 – 59.
Kumar, S. (2005), ‘A Comparative Study of Role Clarity and Work Locus of Control in Banks,’
Bombay Psychologist, 20, 14 – 19.
Kumar, S., and Sreeramulu, M. (2007), ‘Employees’ Productivity and Cost: A Comparative Study of
Banks in India During 1997 to 2006,’ Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, 28, 3, 35 – 50.
Latham, G.P., and Locke, E.A. (1988), ‘Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works,’
Academy of Management Review, 13, 4, 68 – 80.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), ‘What Should Be Done With Equity Theory?’ in Social Exchange: Advances
In Theory And Research, eds. K.J. Gergen and M.S. Greenberg, R.H. Willis, New York: Plenum,
pp. 27 – 55.
Lind, E.A., and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New York:
Plenum.
London, M., and Smither, J.W. (2002), ‘Feedback Orientation Feedback Culture, and the
Longitudinal Performance Management Process,’ Human Resource Management Review, 12,
81 – 100.
Longenecker, C.O., Gioria, D.A., and Sims, H.P. (1987), ‘Behind the Mask: The Politics of
Employee Performance Appraisal,’ Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193.
McConkie, M.L. (1979), ‘A Clarification of the Goal Setting and Appraisal Process in MBO,’
Academy of Management Review, 4, 29 – 40.
McFarlin, D.B., and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), ‘Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors
of Satisfaction with Personal and Organizational Outcomes,’ Academy of Management Journal,
35, 3, 626– 637.
McKinsey & Company (2007), ‘Indian Banking: Towards Best Global Practices – Insights from
Industry Benchmarking Survey,’ http://www.mckinsey.com//locations/india/mckinseyonindia/
pdf/India_Banking_Overview.pdf (retrieved 14 February 2009).
Miceli, M.P., Jung, I., Near, J.P., and Greenberger, D.B. (1991), ‘Predictors and Outcomes of
Reactions to Pay-for-performance Plans,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 508– 521.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P., and Organ, D.W. (1993), ‘Treating Employees Fairly and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Sorting the Effects of Job Satisfaction, Organizational
Commitment and Procedural Justice,’ Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 3,
209– 225.
Murphy, K.R., and Cleveland, J.N. (1991), Performance Appraisal. An Organizational Perspective,
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Pooyan, A., and Eberhardt, B.J. (1989), ‘Correlates of Performance Appraisal Satisfaction Among
Supervisory and Non-supervisory Employees,’ Journal of Business Research, 19, 215– 226.
Rao, T.V. (2004), Performance Management and Appraisal Systems; HR Tools for Global
competitiveness, New Delhi: Response Books (A division of Sage Publications).
Roberts, G.E. (2003), ‘Employee Performance Appraisal System Participation: A Technique That
Works,’ Personnel Management, 32, 1, 89 – 98.
Sabharwal, S. (1995), Wages of Segmentation, New Delhi: Orient Longmans.
Singh, D., and Kohli, G. (2006), ‘Evaluation of Private Sector Banks in India: A SWOT Analysis,’
Journal of Management Research, 6, 2, 84 – 101.
Skarlicki, D.P., and Folger, R. (1997), ‘Retaliation in the Workplace: The Roles of Distributive,
Procedural and Interactional Justice,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434– 443.
Smither, J.W. (1998), ‘Lessons Learned: Research Implications for Performance Appraisal and
Management,’ in Performance Appraisal, ed. J.W. Smither, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tang, T.L., and Sarsfield-Baldwin, L.J. (1996), ‘Distributive and Procedural Justice: As Related to
Satisfaction and Commitment,’ SAM Advanced Management Journal, 61, 25 – 31.
Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K.B., Renard, M.K., Harrison, J.K., and Carrol, S. (1995), ‘Due Process in
Performance Appraisal: A Quasi-Experiment in Procedural Justice,’ Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 495– 523.
Thurston, P.W. Jr. (2001), ‘Clarifying the structure of justice using fairness perceptions of
Performance Appraisal practices,’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Albany, NY.
Varkhey, B. (1994), ‘Human Resource Management Policies and Practices in a Critical Study of
Nationalized Banks,’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation NIBM, Pune, India.
Walsh, M.B. (2003), ‘Perceived Fairness of and Satisfaction with Employee Performance
Appraisal,’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University.
Wood, R.A., and Locke, E.A (1990), ‘Goal Setting and Strategy Effects on Complex Tasks,’
in Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 12), eds. B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings,
Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, pp. 73 – 110.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management: Please Scroll Down For Article

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

The International Journal of Human Resource Management: Please Scroll Down For Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles]

On: 6 April 2011

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: a comparative study on

Online publication date: 23 February 2011

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: a comparative study

*Corresponding author: Email: purang@hss.iitb.ac.in

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

Differences between public and private sector banks

Employee motivation in the organization can be viewed from increased employee

generating maximum dissatisfaction among employees (Rao 2004). A kind of general

standardized questionnaires earlier in this study. The questionnaires were personally

Table 3. Independent samples t-test.

Levene’s test for

robust (MB ¼ 15.0, MA ¼ 12.9, t ¼ 6.241, p , 0.001), ratings to be more accurate

Table 4. Themes identified for public sector bank.

Themes Frequencya Percentage

Table 5. Themes identified in private sector bank.

Themes Frequencya Percentage

(f) Quality of feedback is good. Feedback is used to chalk 13/20 65

supervisors increases. It is important to have confidence and trust in one’s rater/supervisor

Conclusion and implications

Measures?’ The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 33, 57 – 64.

You might also like