Evaluation of Staff Performance in Cocoa Research Institute of Ibadan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement

List of Figures and Tables

Abstract

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.4 Significance of the Study
1.5 Scope of the Study
1.6 Definition of Key Terms
1.7 Chapter Outline

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Performance Evaluation
2.2 Usage of Performance Evaluation
2.3 Evaluation Purpose of Performance Evaluation
2.4 Evaluation Methods
2.5 Gaps in Literature

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
3.1 Study Population
3.2 Sampling Procedure
3.3 Research Instrument
3.4 Data Collection
3.5 validity of Research Instrument
3.6 Method of Data Analysis

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 The Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
4.1.1 Distribution of Respondents Based on Gender
Table 4.1 Frequency Distribution of Respondent on Gender
Table 4.2 Distribution of Respondents Based on Age
Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution of Respondent Based on Academic Qualification
Table 4.4 Distribution of Respondents of Department
Table 4.5 Distribution of Respondents Based on Grade Level
Table 4.6 Table Showing that the Evaluation Performance Procedure 29-
Table 4.7 Table Showing the Current Evaluation Procedure in CRIN 32-
Table 4.8 Table showing the Problems and Challenges Associated with the Performance Evaluation System

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of Findings
5.2 Conclusion
5.3 Recommendations

Bibliography

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Frequency Distribution of Respondent on Gender

Table 4.2 Distribution of Respondents Based on Age

Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution of Respondent Based on Academic Qualification

Table 4.4 Distribution of Respondents of Department

Table 4.5 Distribution of Respondents Based on Grade Level

Table 4.6 Table Showing that the Evaluation Performance Procedure

Table 4.7 Table Showing the Current Evaluation Procedure in CRIN

Table 4.8 Table showing the Problems and Challenges Associated with the Performance Evaluation System

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I give all the glory and adoration to the Almighty God who has always been my divine help and has made it possible for me to start and complete this course.

My special thanks go to the Director (Administration and Supplies) and staff of Human Resources of the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) for supporting me. My profound gratitude also goes to my lecturers for their understanding, meticulous scrutiny and constructive criticisms at different stages of this research work. God will increase you Sir. In the same vein, I wish to acknowledge all my lectures in Department of Public Administration, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. You’ve all touched my life one way or the other for good. May the Almighty God continue to grant you success in all your undertakings Amen.

Finally, my gratitude goes to my dear parents, siblings, confidant, friends and well-wishers toward the success of this study. Thank you all.

ABSTRACT

This book focused on the procedure of staff evaluation and performance in the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) with a view to assess the evaluation performance system of staff; to appraize the current evaluation process procedure in CRIN and to analyze problems and challenges associated with the performance evaluation system in the Institute. The effectiveness of evaluation instrument employed by the Institute for the performance assessment of staff negates the evaluation method on staff related habits.

Both primary and secondary sources of data were employed for the study. Primary sources of data included administration of questionnaire and in-depth interviews. The study population comprised the staff of Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) that was in four main departments. The sampling technique on the total number of staff was randomly selected for the study from the departments, making a total of 50 respondents. A total of 50 questionnaires were therefore administered on the respondents but 43 copies were retrieved. Interviews were also conducted on four Sectional Heads of Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) to complement the data collected through questionnaires. Secondary data such as: textbooks, official records, internet publications etc. are equally consulted. The data collected were analyzed using simple percentage and tables.

The results revealed that open-reporting approach is adopted in the application of the performance appraisal system in Public Service. For instance, 37 respondents, representing 86% of the total number of respondents gave positive answers, 6 respondents 14% answered in the negative. The study also showed the objective/target setting was not common practice between the superior and subordinate officers and that there was no formal training in the completion of performance appraisal form. To support these finding 25 respondents, representing 58.13% gave negative responses, 10 respondents, representing 23.26%, responded positively while 8 respondents and representing 18.60% were not sure. The study revealed the performance appraisal interview (an important component of performance appraisal process) is missed out. Thus, the appraised are denied the opportunity to get feedback from performance appraisal exercise. It was revealed that the information generated from the performance appraisal exercise is used only for promotion of staff and not for other developmental needs of the Public Servants such as trainings and development, inter-cadre transfer, and staff deployment objective assessment of staff was also absent.

The study concluded that the procedure of performance appraisal of Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) was defective and counterproductive.

CHAPTER ONE:INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Book

Only a minority of activities in personnel management are concerned with evaluating employees as individuals. These activities include evaluation of performance, grievance and disciplinary matters. It is crucial to carry out this kind of evaluation regularly which focuses on the attention not only on individual but on jobs, structures, procedures or people in groups. It is often done annually, but it could be carried out every six months, or even every three months in certain circumstances. Thus, for example, job evaluation focuses on jobs, not on job holder; job design and organization development focus on jobs/task structure wage and salary administration focus on procedures, whilst manpower planning and collective bargaining focus on people in groups.

It is important that the procedure remains largely similar year upon year (apart from necessary updating of the evaluation system).

The evaluating of individual employee in terms of his/her job performance is a task requiring a quality of manager’s judgment which places a considerable responsibility on the managers/supervisors involved. It is a task that is delicate as well as complex. The implicit logic in evaluation performance is that in order to get employees to direct their efforts towards achievements of organizational objectives, management must tell employees what to do, judge/evaluate how well they have done and reward or punish them accordingly. The objectives of evaluation performance are;

1) To know the employees’ issue regarding his/her performance,
2) To know the employees potential as to their involvement in the organization.
3) To know how the organization could achieve better result.

Evaluation of staff is an important activity in Personnel Management with regards to evaluating employees as individuals in an organization. These activities include evaluation 1 performance, grievance and disciplinary matters. Organizations exist to produce goods and services, these goods and services represent the output of the firm but the work to be performed in order to achieve this output is not to contribute to the organization goals and objectives. The evaluation of individual employees in terms of his/her job performance is a task requiring a quality of manager’s judgment which places considerable responsibility on the managers/supervisors involved. It is also believed that evaluation of staff performance involves effective communication between the individual and the organization. It is however important to know that all workers should be evaluated, from directors of large organizations to stop floor workers.

Ironically, the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN), which was established in Ibadan, Oyo State, on the 1st December, 1964 as a successor autonomous research organization into the Nigerian substation of the defunct West African Cocoa Research Institute (WACRI) (Nigeria Statute, Act No.6 of 1950) following the establishment in 1944 of the headquarters of the said WACRI at Tafo, Ghana with responsibility to conduct research to facilitate improved production of disease-resistant cocoa. By virtue of the Nigerian Research Institutes Act No 33 of 1964, the scope of CRIN was expanded beyond the WACRI to include research on kola and coffee in addition to cocoa. According to the expansion, CRIN objectives were mandated on five crops for further scopes which are actively conducted for research till today, namely, Cocoa, Kola, Cashew, and Tea. CRIN is organized into nine Divisions comprising of technical/research and services Divisions, namely:

i) Research and Substation(R&S)
ii) End-Uses Research(EUR)
iii) Planning, Budgeting, Monitoring and Training(PB&T)
iv) Extension and Agricultural Economics(E&AE)
v) Administration and Supplies,
vi) Finance and Accounts,
vii) Internal Audit,
viii) Library, Information and Documentation and
ix) Engineering and Maintenance

These Divisions are responsible to the Director/Chief Executive who in turn is also responsible to the Institute’s Governing Board and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Institute maintains a bi-lateral relationship with international organizations that deal with cocoa and some of its other mandate crops. So also it has linkages with other National Agricultural Research Institute (NARIs) states and national agencies which its technologies are disseminated.

Manpower and other Existing Resources

The Institute as today has a total staff strength of seven hundred and twenty-seven (727), made up of One hundred and thirty-six (136) research scientists, laboratory technologists and agricultural superintendents, one hundred and twenty (120) professionals in administration and finance, two hundred and twenty-three (223) in engineering works and two hundred and fifty-six (256) semi-skilled and unskilled personnel. There are other physical infrastructures and social services available at the institute headquarters in Ibadan and all the above mentioned substations and experimental sites. All the members of staff work hand in hand to achieve the set goals of the institute.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The assessment being used by the Civil Service Commission in evaluating its staff for promotion or disciplinary actions is subjected to falsehood in many ways. Consequently, this leads to the advancement of those who least deserve it and the failure to sanction those who deserve to be sanctioned. This poor performance of rating has negatively affected the Nigerian civil service without the exception of Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria resulting with undue favour to some staff while many are neglected. It is against this background that this study sets out to evaluate the staff performance in the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria with a view to identifying the problems and challenges associated with the performance evaluation system in the Institute.

1.3 Objectives of the Book

The objectives of the study are to

(i) examine the evaluation performance system of staff being applied in Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria;
(ii) assess the current evaluation process procedure in CRIN; and
(iii) analyze problems and challenges associated with the performance evaluation system in the Institute.

1.4 Significance of the Book

This study is significant as it expects to serve as a source of secondary information for more extensive study on evaluation performance system in future and may lead to the identification of other researchable topics leading to the extension of the frontiers of knowledge. Also, the recommendations when adopted can dramatically improve the current practice of evaluation performance system especially in its function as developmental tool in human resource management.

1.5 Scope of the Book

This study covers all the departments in the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria. This study further reports comprehensively, the achievements and problems which have accompanied the evaluation of staff performance in the Institute.

1.7 Definition of key Terms

i) Performance: The term performance describes how an employee carries out the tasks that make up a job. It may also refer to physical, manual, intellectual or mental jobs.
ii) Evaluation: It refers to an assessment or estimation of the worth, value and quality of a person or thing.
iii) APER: Annual Performance Evaluation Report.

1.8 Chapter Outline

This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter one deals with the introduction to the study. An attempt is made in Chapter two to discuss Literature review on the performance evaluation. Chapter Three deals extensively with the research methodology. Chapter four discusses the data presentation, analysis and discussion of findings. Chapter five deals with summary and recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Performance Evaluation

Human Resources Management (HRM according to Akinpelu (2009) refers to “all the processes and activities aimed at utility all employees to achieve organizational end. He also suggested that HRM involves:

1. Staffing (whereby the organization employs the right people to achieve its goals).
2. Performance management (that this people’s action add values to the organization and they are rewarded and trained appropriately);
3. Retention (through staffing end performance management)
4. Complaints (with government legislation and ensuring appropriate policies) and
5. Change management

As the organization gets bigger, a formal performance evaluation system aids administrative decisions such as paid increases and promotion, redundancy or termination development needs and for the employees the process may assist them in career choices and may increase their commitment and satisfaction due to improvement in organization’s communication (Wiese-Buckley 1998).

However, Cole (2001) and Wright (2001) argued that people cannot be motivated. Cole and Wright went on to say that people motivate themselves and managers can provide the environment for them to be motivated. There are many ways to provide a motivational environment for employees, and these included developing their skills, giving them feedback and rewarding them in ways that means something to them. Therefore, performance evaluation can be used as a tool to assist managers in motivating their employees. Performance Management includes any management activity aimed at improving, establishing performance standards, appraising performance, setting performance plans and managing career and mobility (Matheny, 2004).

According to Baker (1988) performance evaluation can be the most powerful tool that managers have for improving productivity. When designed and used properly, it can assist organizational decisions on reward and promotions, assist employees in their development and career planning and may even increase employees motivation, commitment and satisfaction (Fletcher, 1993; Wilson and Western, 2001), especially if the performance evaluation system is aligned with the organisation's stated objectives (Wright, 2002).

However, this alignment tends not to be emphasized and as such, performance evaluation process is often seen as a chore and pointless, judging past performance against targets that are not always clear (Rudman, 2003). Performance evaluation is also capable of stirring strong feelings (Fink & Longenecker, 1998). Sadly as pointed out by Simmons (2002) a positive performance evaluation experience tend to be due to the quality of the personal relationship between manager and employee, where a good relationship creates a good evaluation experience.

2.2. Usage of Performance Evaluation

Performance evaluation is seen as key function in most established models of human resource management, and may be directly or indirectly connected to payment systems as well as other components of performance management approaches (Shelley, 1999). The practice of formally evaluating employees has existed for centuries. Valance and Fellow (1999) stated that modern evaluation methods are generally traced to the United States of America (USA) army in 1813. By early 1950s, in the USA, evaluation was an accepted practice in many organizations in making administrative decisions such as promotion and salary increases; and in the 1960s and 1970s its usage increasingly included employee's development, organizations’ planning, documentation and systems maintenance.

Bowles and Coates (1993) believed that the growth of performance evaluation was attributed to the 1980s where organizations had to be seen to have the competitive edge whereby its main objectives were to operate effectively and efficiently and to provide quality 7 service/products. (They believed that performance evaluation was used to control employees to achieve these objectives). Wright and Race (2004) concur that a well-administered and fair performance evaluation, which consisted of agreed measurable objectives and development needs of employees will help an organization to achieve a competitive edge, however, they cautioned that any action plans discussed, must be followed through to ensure that the system does not lose credibility.

Bowles and Coates (1993) noted that performance evaluation is gaining in importance as a tool in the management process; its use is also being adopted by the public sector and covering different occupational groups including the blue-collar and secretarial employees. From their June 1992 postal survey of 250 West Midlands (in the United Kingdom (U.K) large companies from all industries, they found that these companies were experiencing problems with their performance evaluation, but considered the system beneficial in order of priority:

1. In the process of communication between employer and employees;
2. In defining performance expectations; and
3. in identifying training needs.

Health Service Trust Hospital (UK) in 1996/97 in order to examine the effectiveness of performance evaluation in a public sector context. They found that very few managers and professional suggested that performance evaluation should be discarded altogether as they felt that the process did have some overall value.

It seems apparent that performance evaluation is very much .alive, but the main issue is who does it benefit the organization or the individual? McGregor (1972) concluded that performance evaluation had multiple uses and it was designed to meet three needs, one for the organization and two for the employees:

1. The provision of systematic judgments to back up salary increases, promotions, transfers, demotions or terminations;
2. A means of telling employees how they were doing and whether changes in their behaviour, attitudes, skills were needed; and
3. For managers to coach and counsel employees.

Cleveland et al. (1989) study confirmed McGregor's suggestion that there were multiple uses of performance evaluation in an organization, and their study identified four categories.

1. Between-individuals (for administrative decisions such as promotion, retention and salary);
2. Within-individuals (to identify training and development needs which included performance feedback, determination of transfers and identifying strengths and weaknesses);
3. Systems maintenance (to identify organizational goals, for organizational training need analysis, personnel planning and to implement and evaluate human resource system); and
4. Documentation (for legal requirements and to document or justify personnel decisions such as terminations).

Dean, Kathawal and Wayland (1992), on the other hand stated that performance evaluations has two broad purposes:

1. As an evaluative function in making decisions on administrative matters such as merit pay, promotions, demotions, transfers and retention of employees; and
2. As a developmental function to identify training and development plan.

They cited a 1984 survey conducted by the American Management Association of 588 managers, whereby more than 85 percent of the respondents reported that performance evaluation was used commonly for compensation purposes. Other uses included counselling, training and development, promotion, staff planning, retention decisions and as primary source of documentation for potential legal problems involving employees. However, the study found that the process did not always work as a motivational tool due to low level of trust, and that employees perceive that the measurement of their performance is not assessed accurately.

Bowles and Coates (1993) study on the other hand found that the main use of the performance evaluation process was to achieve work goals, as an accountable and control mechanism aimed at the individual employees and not as a training tool to benefit the employees. They also found secondary usages of the process which included relationship building, benchmarking of performance, and identifying development and training needs.

In New Zealand (NZ), Taylor and O' Driscoll (1993) conducted a study to investigate how and why New Zealand undertook the performance evaluation process, and what difficulties they encountered during implementation. (They randomly selected 89 private and public organizations each with at least 300 employees). They found that:

1. Many organizations use their performance evaluation system to serve two functions, administrative and developmental, and they felt that there was no conflict in meeting both;
2. Private organizations were more likely than public ones to use performance evaluation information in decisions concerning terminations, layoffs, transfer and new assignments;
3. Public organizations are more likely to use the performance evaluation information to meet legal requirements, which is likely to reflect the impact of stronger Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) legislation in the public sector;
4. Virtually all respondents indicated that pay was informally linked with performance evaluations;
5. Most of the organizations, conducted a yearly evaluation but interestingly a large proportion conducted appraisal discussion more than once a year.
6. For most organizations the appraisee's manager is the main contributor to the performance ratings (appraisees themselves do play a significant role, however peers and customers do not play a formal role); and;
7. They believed their systems were, on average, only somewhat effective and most mentioned modifications that they had made recently or were considering in the near future.

[...]