1

Factors Influencing Job Productivity: A Case Study

In Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia

Dr. Mahmood O. E. Hamad

College of Business

Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University

P.O. Box 1664, Al Khobar 31952

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

mhamad@pmu.edu.sa

Factors Influencing Job Productivity: A Case Study

2

In Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT

In this study, we examine empirically the factors influencing employee job productivity in

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). A survey was collected from 200 employees occupying different

positions in their respective organizations. The organizations surveyed are of different sizes,

activities, ownership, and come from different regions of the KSA. Results show that effective

performance appraisal is a significant predictor of employee productivity, whereas job satisfaction

is not a significant predictor of employee productivity. The fact that findings from this study

contradict findings from research in other countries is due to the unique working environment in

KSA, where expatriates represent a large portion of the workforce. This study is the first to explore

this topic in KSA, and therefore, it entails a paucity of knowledge about what influences job

productivity in KSA. The practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Key words: Employee productivity, effective performance appraisal, job satisfaction, Kingdom

of Saudi Arabia, expatriates.

Paper type Research paper

INTRODUCTION

3

To grow and thrive in today’s competitive environment, organizations must focus continually on

enhancing their effectiveness and productivity. For this reason, organizations invest a great deal

of resources in employment tests, job interviews, and training programs in an attempt to improve

job satisfaction, and ultimately, improve employee productivity and job performce (Hooi, 2012;

Aguinis, 2009; Shields, 2007; Judge et al., 2001). Considering that availing of human assets is the

way to achieve organizational goals (Pulakos, 2009), employees are the most critical component

that organizations can leverage to improve their effectiveness. There is therefore a persistent need

to attract and preserve good employees by maintaining a satisfactory working environment,

thereby helping to get employees to perform at their best and to improve workplace productivity

(Sextona et al., 2005; Brown and Peterson, 1993). Currently, leading organizations depend heavily

on human resource development in order to foster desirable workplace atmospheres and attitudes,

including the key elements of job satisfaction and job performance (Bartlett and Kang, 2004).

The increasing use of the performance appraisal process (Nankervis and Compton, 2006; Millward

et al., 2000) is motivated by an organizational desire to improve employee productivity, which

leads to higher organizational performance (Aguinis, 2009; Murphy and Cleveland, 1991). This

process is a consequence of creating an early set of organizational obejctives, which support a clear

performance target that employees must reach by a certain date. By the end of each evaluation

cycle, employees are informed of the process outcome (Heneman and Werner, 2005). Those with

high performance are rewarded for their efforts to sustain high productivity, whereas those with

lower performance are provided with feedback to help them improve during the next evaluation

cycle (Kuvaas, 2011).

4

Recently, companies have been placing increased emphasis on performance appraisal (PA)

(Youngcourt et al., 2007; Kuvaas, 2007), and the central function of human resource management

in this endeavor has remained an important topic of investigation among researchers (Jawahar,

2007; Murphy and Cleveland, 1991). The importance of the performance appraisal as a managerial

decision tool relies partly on whether or not the performance appraisal system is capable of

providing an accurate assessment of employee performance, in which rating precision is a vital

element of the appraisal process. Therefore, properly performed performance appraisals can offer

numerous positive organizational results (Pettijohn et al., 2001), including improvements in both

employee job satisfaction and employee productivity (Anderson, 1993; Aguinis, 2009).

Performance appraisal and its implications on individual and organizational performance

continues to be a critical topic of investigation among researchers. Some previous researches have

therefore continued to examine the relationship between performance appraisal and employee job

satisfaction and employee productivity for various organizations, but findings have generated

mixed opinions on the effects of performance appraisal on employee job satisfaction and

productivity (Brown et al., 2010; Coens and Jenkins, 2002; Fletcher and Williams, 1996). The fact

that these relationships are mostly assumed rather than tested (Levy and Williams, 2004) can be

due to several factors related to individual psychological or contextual issues (Fletcher, 2002).

Investigations of contextual differences that may influence the relationship between performance

appraisal and employee job satisfaction and productivity can identify conditions under which a

performance appraisal is more or less effective, and which can yield results of practical relevance

(Kuvaas, 2011; Pulakos, 2009). Among the many empirical studies on this relationship, no

5

literature studies have been undertaken in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this study attempts

to fill the gap in the existing literature by empirically examining the influence of effective

performance appraisal and job satisfaction on employee productivity for a unique environment –

that in the KSA.

The government in KSA imposes many challenging employment regulations that are different

from those in other countries, even close Arabic countries, such as unique labor relationships and

employment laws to control the large number of expats – more than 55% of the total workforce

(recent statistics from the minister of labor indicate that KSA contains close to 9 million expats).

Currently, most businesses in KSA utilize a large number of expats to conduct daily operations,

due to the lack of local skilled employees or to attract cheap labor from other countries. In addition,

there are significant variations in salary scale for employees, based on many factors. This

condition has pushed KSA government to draft new policy to force businesses to start hiring local

Saudis to achieve certain percentage of the total workforce for each business category. This

condition imposes significant pressure on businesses to reconstruct their operations; this in turns

impacted the workplace environments and attitudes, including the key elements of job satisfaction

and job performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Performance appraisal is a process in which a supervisor collects information to evaluate and judge

the job performance of a subordinate (Walsh, 2003). In many cases, the appraisal is a formal

routine and an important element of personnel management policy (Walsh, 2003). Management

6

views performance appraisal as a required process for a specific period of time during which part

or all of an employee's work is evaluated and judged by a supervisor (Coens and Jenkins, 2002).

To be a coherent process, the performance appraisal requires that the assessment of employee

performance be based on predefined standards (Smither, 1998), to enhance the effectiveness of the

appraisal in evaluating the quality of an employee’s performance (Grote, 2002).

Each element of the organization needs to be evaluated to check its performance and define

procedures to improve it. Conducting employee performance appraisal has become standard

practice in most organizations (Selden et al., 2001). Conventionally, the appraisal is conducted as

an annual routine that involves social interaction between a supervisor and an employee to

establish action plans through a discussion of the individual’s past job performance and future

developmental requirements (Murphy and Cleveland, 1995), and therefore, the real value of

performance appraisal comes from its effective application. Recently, the simple routine of

recording and documenting an employee’s performance has changed into a more strategic and

holistic approach to connect a corporate strategic map with department and employee

performances (Fletcher, 2004).

The 360-degree feedback, peer-to-peer, and supervisor subordinate appraisal systems were created

to enhance the effectiveness and quality of the evaluation process (Coens and Jenkins, 2002; Grote,

2002; Neal, 2001). These systems were developed to involve more participants in the evaluations

process – those who have been working with employees and have the potential to provide

important information to consolidate the appraisal process (Redman and Snape, 1992). The 360-

degree feedback is conducted through an anonymous procedure to ensure confidentiality.

7

Although 360-degree feedback and supervisor-subordinate appraisals are the most popular types

of appraisal (Ployhart et al., 2001), mounting evidence suggests that both types introduce

subjectivity and variance into ratings (Judge et al., 2001). Subsequent investigation has introduced

a new technique, Balanced Scorecard, which expands performance measures and evaluation. This

technique includes multiple perspectives that involve financial, customer-evaluation feedback on

internal processes and on learning and growth (Bach, 2005). The equity theory states that people

in social exchange relationships believe that rewards should be distributed according to the level

of individual contribution (Adams, 1963). This means that satisfaction is based on a person's

perception of fairness. Utilizing this theory when conducting a performance appraisal involves

balancing the assessment of an employee's contribution to his/her job with the rewards associated

with his/her success.

Effective performance appraisal serves the function of enhancing the efficiency of employees by

identifying their capabilities and interests and offering training and other career development

opportunities. In practice however, implementing effective performance appraisal is a complex

process with a potential for variation, mainly when the manager is obliged to execute subjective

judgments on employee performance. These judgments have the scope to reduce the quality of the

performance appraisal process because they are subject to emotion-induced bias (Treadway et al.

, 2007), which suggests that traditional appraisal systems can limit an organization’s ability to

remain competitive (Brown et al., 2010). Many studies have identified the reluctance of mangers

to undertake appraisals (Heathfield, 2007), some managers avoid the process entirely, and many

practitioners conduct appraisals in an arbitrary and a perfunctory manner (Pettijohn et al., 2001).

8

The negative attitudes of some managers toward the performance appraisal system are due partly

to considering this system as an isolated activity unrelated to other activities within the

organization, and to ignoring some of the contextual factors that influence the system.

Effective Performance Appraisal

Effective performance appraisal symbolizes a critical function of human resource management

and has persevered as a central topic of investigation among organizational researchers (Coens and

Jenkins, 2002; Dulebohn and Ferris, 1999). Performance appraisal is the process of evaluating an

employee performance on the job and establishing a plan of improvements; whereas effective

performance appraisal is the process that enhances employees’ perception of a useful appraisal

system. If performance appraisal is conducted properly, it can be a useful managerial decision tool

to provide correct information on employee satisfaction (Brown et al., 2010) and productivity

(Aguinis, 2009). Due to the significant value of performance appraisal, practitioners and

researchers alike are keen to investigate factors that make it an effective system (Al-Dmour and

Awamleh, 2002; Bach, 2005). Lindholm (1999) suggests the following three elements that could

enhance employees’ perception of a useful appraisal system: employee involvement in the

objective-setting process; opportunity for employee training and development; and feedback on

job performance. These elements provide a foundation for employee satisfaction since they support

employee career development and organizational commitment (Kuvaas, 2006). To sustain it as a

valuable system, performance appraisal should be designed to capture past performance

effectively, provide reflection points, and support a developmental roadmap for employee

9

improvement at a personal and professional level (Coens and Jenkins 2002). Since the

effectiveness of the appraisal system relies on the wider organizational and managerial context

(Narcisse and Harcourt, 2008), some of the organizational and managerial context should be

included in the process – such as top management support, organizational policy concerning the

use of appraisal information, job characteristics, and supervisory behavior.

There is an increasing body of information confirming the relationship between performance

appraisals and increases in employee performance and productivity (Rodgers and Hunter, 1991;

Schay, 1988; Taylor and Pierce, 1999). For example, Aldakhilallah and Parente (2002) propose

that, to enhance employee productivity, managers reshape the performance appraisal process to

make it consistent with a high-quality management organization. Other researchers propose that

the increasing use of the performance appraisal process be arranged by organizational desire to

enhance employee productivity (Nankervis and Compton, 2006; Wiese and Buckley, 1998). Thus,

an effective performance appraisal should identify poorly performing employees and provide

feedback to improve their productivity Aguinis (2009), and perhaps allow them to partake in

training activities in order to enhance their performance.

H1. Effective performance appraisal improves employee productivity.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction, viewed as the degree of pleasure a worker obtains from his or her job (Spector,

1997), has been intensively studied both empirically and in the literature. Job satisfaction may also

10

be expressed as an employee's general attitude towards the job (Robbins and Coulter, 1996). Others

identify it as the pleasant emotional state resulting from a positive appraisal of an individual’s

performance (Price, 2001). An effective and high-quality performance appraisal likely enhances

employee feelings of self-worth, achievement, attitudes and positive standing in the organization

(Lind and Tyler, 1988). Fried and Ferris (1987) suggest that a high-quality performance appraisal

process produces higher levels of job satisfaction, whereas a low-quality performance appraisal

leads to lower levels of job satisfaction (Campbell et al., 1998). It is expected therefore that

employees in KSA would enjoy a high level of job satisfaction if performance appraisals were

implemented effectively in the workplace:

H2. Effective performance appraisal promotes Job Satisfaction.

Employee productivity

Employee productivity can be related to that of one’s peers on several job-related outcomes, where

it includes both efficiency and effectiveness (Babin and Boles, 1998). Gerenally, high productive

employees improve an organization’s efficiency and productivity (Kuvaas, 2011). Several

measurements are used to define employee productivity: goal attainment for the organization,

service, professional growth, meeting productivity goals, meeting deadlines, being well organized,

accomplishing a large amount of work, accuracy, and problem solving. In practice, improving

employee productivity requires management support in resolving issues related to the above

measurement factors (Kuvaas, 2006).

11

Studies point out that job satisfaction is determined by a number of organizational factors such as

relationships with colleagues and managers, income status, chances of promotion and

advancement, interest in the job, independence at work, job stability and security, and fairness at

work (Fischer and Sousa-Poza, 2009). Satisfied employees work hard to sustain the high level of

satisfaction, leading to higher employee productivity. In this study, we anticipate that job

satisfaction increases an employee’s productivity, as presented in Figure 1, which shows the

theoretical framework and proposed hypothesis.

H3. Employee job satisfaction promotes employee productivity.

Figure 1. The theoretical framework and proposed hypothesis

H1

H2 H3

12

METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted by a field survey distributed to employees working at various levels in

their respective organizations. These organizations are of different sizes, activities, and ownership,

and operate in different regions of KSA. A sample of 280 employees from several organizations

in KSA was selected to receive the survey. In total, 200 participants returned the survey,

representing 71.25% usable response rate.

The scale used in measuring the effectiveness of performance appraisal consists of nine items,

adapted from Timperley (1998). Job satisfaction was adapted from a scale developed and validated

by Al-Dmour and Awamleh (2002), which has six items. For employee productivity construct, a

single item, adopted from Kemerling (2002), was used. The demographic profile included

questions relating to both the characteristics of the participants as well as their organizations. The

Appendix shows the survey and measurement items used. The data collected were analysed using

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), to check for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and test

hypotheses about relations among observed and latent variables (Hoyle, 1995). SEM is a

multivariate technique incorporating measured variables and latent constructs, and explicitly

specifies measurement error.

RESULTS

Job

Satisfaction

Employee

Productivity

Effective Performance

Appraisal

13

The demographic variables of the participants are presented in Table 1. The table shows that 63%

of the participating firms engage in manufacturing activities, 19% work in the service industry,

and the remaining 18% partake in both activities. About 57% of firms are private, and 16% are

publicly owned. Most of the firms are large, with more than 500 employees, and 30% of them are

mid-size. Over 42% of firms have operated for more than 10 years, and 43% have existed for less

than 5 years. Of the participants, 6% are top managers, 22% are middle managers, 20% are

supervisors, and 51% occupy various positions. Nationality-wise, 76% of participants are non-

Saudi, and 24% Saudi. Experience-wise, 71% of participants have less than 5 years experience,

and the rest have over 6 years. More than 65% of participants have a post-high school degree.

Table 1. Demographic variables of participants

Valid responses Percent

Organizational Activities Manufacturing 126 63

Service 38 19

Both 36 18

Organizational Ownership

Private 114 57

Government 32 16

Joint 54 27

Number of employees

Less than 100 20 10.0

14

100 – 500 60 30.0

More than 500 120 60.0

Organizational Age

5 Years or Less 86 43.4

6- 10 Years 28 14.1

Over 10 Years 84 42.4

Occupational Position

Top manager 12 6.1

Middle manager 44 22.4

Supervisor 40 20.4

Other 100 51.0

Employee Age

25 years or less 32 15.8

26-35 years 88 43.6

36-45 years 60 29.7

45 years or over 22 10.9

Nationality

Saudi 48 24

Non-Saudi 152 76

Employee experience

5 years or less 144 71.3

6- 10 years 22 10.9

Over 10 years 36 17.8

Employee Education

Less than university 70 34.7

College graduate 38 18.8

University degree 80 39.6

Postgraduate degree 14 6.9

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted as illustrated in Figure 2. In full measurement

dimensions CFA, Chi square value was found to be 149.6, with degree of freedom 75, CFI value

was 0.867, TLI value was 0.981, and GFI value was 0.913, suggesting a good fit of the

measurement model to the data. In addition, the RMSEA was 0.071, well below 0.08, which

suggests that the model fits well. The good fit was achieved by dropping 20% of the total

measurement items, as suggested by Hair et al. (2010). When the model fit does not achieve the

good fitness of the model to solve this issue, the maximum drop of the items should not exceed

15

20%. Therefore, 20% of the items where dropped to achieve a good fit of the model, specifically

(q-6 from job satisfaction and q-2 from effective performance appraisal) items were dropped, as

illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The proposed model variables and measurement items

Structural Equation Modeling

Because all the indices in the measurement model fit show overall goodness-of-fit, all the direct

relationship effects were tested simultaneously in the structural equation modelling. Figure 3

presents a model that assumes a causal structure among a set of latent variables, and that assumes

the observed variables are indicators of the latent variables. Because the observed variables are

measures of job satisfaction and effective performance appraisal and productivity, a structure

model was then conducted to estimate the parameters. The relationships between latent variables

with the items are shown by the one direction arrow (Figure 3).

16

Figure 3. The structural equation modeling for the model variables

Figure 3 indicates that the hypothesised models of the structural equation modelling fit well to the

sample data. The outcome of the findings, however, demonstrates that the main relationship

between effective performance appraisal and productivity is significant relationships, with p value

of .048, as shown Table 2. However, the relationship of effective performance appraisal and job

satisfaction is not significant with p value of .904. The same case of job satisfaction and

productivity, where the relationship is not significant with p value .611. Eeffective performance

appraisal as a construct is a strong factor influencing productivity. The results of these analyses

will be discussed in more detail in the discussion section.

Table 2. The significant relationship between model variables

17

Relationship Estimate S.E. C.R. P

effective performance appraisal productivity -.357 .180 -1.978 .048

effective performance appraisal job satisfaction -.018 .149 -.121 .904

job satisfaction productivity .054 .106 .509 .611

DISCUSSION

The findings demonstrate that hypothesis 1 is supported, an outcome in line with that of previous

studies (Aguinis, 2009; Kuvaas, 2006; Coens and Jenkins 2002; Taylor and Pierce, 1999), where

the role of effective performance appraisal was evident to enhance employee productivity.

However, the results demonstrate that hypothesis 2 and 3 are not supported, a finding that

contradicts the outcome from other studies (Brown et al., 2010; Masterson et al., 2000; Fletcher

and Williams, 1996), where mostly show a positive relationship between effective performance

appraisal and job satisfaction on the one hand, and relatioship between job satisfaction and

employee productivity on the other. This variation might be due to the peculiarity of the working

environment which is different from that for previous studies conducted in Western environments.

For example, the number of working expats in KSA represents over 35% of the total workforce,

and they come from various countries to work temporarily in the rich oil state for periods of from

one year to several years. Each firm in KSA could contain employees from many countries, all

from different working environments. Some employees come from developed counties that have

a high standard of employment practice, others from poor countries that lack the minimum

18

conditions for good employment standard. No doubt, the unique working environment in KSA has

an impact on the findings of this study.

The results indicate that although the performance appraisal exercise was conducted in KSA

organizations, it did not lead to employee satisfaction. This negative finding can be due to firms’

not providing a constructive feedbak for employees and not helping them to improve their

performane for the next evaluation cycle. This dissatisfaction had lead to weakening of the

relationship between employee satisfacton and productivity. Such an environment signals a major

issue in utilizing the performance appraisal system in KSA, where its implementation did not

consider the background of workers and their perception of the appraisal’s implications. This can

be further verified by additional studies to investigate how different expats interpret job

satisfaction based on their country of origin.

Results confirm eight determinants of effective performance appraisal in KSA. The practical

implication of this indicates that to achieve the intended results of performance appraisal,

management should incorporate those eight features in their performance appraisal exercise, and

ensure that all employees have a clear understanding of their implications. Note that the levels of

effective performance appraisal, employee productivity, and job satisfaction do not vary among

most of the demographics in Saudi firms.

CONCLUSION

19

It can be concluded from this study that employee job satisfaction is not influenced by effective

performance appraisal in KSA. In addition, job satisfaction has no direct impact on employee

productivity, or subsequently on organizational performance. In general, however, employees in

KSA are productive in their jobs to meet job requirements and renew their contract. This study

provides the first empirical evidence about the impact of an effective performance appraisal on

employee productivity in KSA; but findings and implications are not restricted only to the KSA

environment, but could expand to other Arabic Gulf Countries, which share similar working

environment. Thus, this study fills a gap in our understanding of the relationship between effective

performance appraisal and employee productivity within a highly diversified working

environment.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

As performance appraisal becomes an important part of human resource management, the results

of the performance appraisal process is the foundation for many human resources decisions. It is

crucial therefore to have an effective application of the performance appraisal system. In practice,

organizations face challenges when conducting a low-quality performance appraisal process

because it generates a low-performance appraisal experience for employees, leading to lower job

satisfaction and lower productivity. To increase the effectiveness of performance appraisal, a

certain level of interaction between managers and employees beyond formal appraisal activities is

required, to enable appraisers to alter the performance appraisal at the requests of individual

appraises. This issue becomes critical for a highly diversified working environment, such as in the

KSA, where workers from different cultures and backgrounds operate in one organization. To

20

facilitate the performance appraisal process, organizations can utilize standardized formats

consisting of detailed manuals on how appraisers should conduct performance appraisals

effectively, and try to modify them after a few rounds of testing to capture the unique working

environment in KSA. Standardized methods can be selected for various purposes based on the

organization structure and on how collected information will be used. The unique nature of

employment in KSA requires manages to take extra steps to increase the effectiveness of the

performance appraisal process and ensure it meets organizational objectives in increasing

employee productivity.

LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

One limitation in this study is that it revolved around three variables include effective performance

appraisal, employee job satisfaction and employee productivity. However, in future research more

psychological and contextual variables can be added to our model as a moderator, in order to obtain

a deeper understanding of the phenomena. Also, being a cross-sectional study, this study examines

the influence of the independent variables over a limited time. However, since the working

environment in KSA is changing continuously, due to altering government regulations, the impact

of different variables could be different overtime. Another limitation could arise from having a

majority (76 percent) of the respondents as non-Saudis; this may skew the perception of the general

employees with respect to all the three variables. To mitigate these limitations, further studies

could replicate this study by collecting data using larger sample, targeting employees occupying

21

different organizational levels and relatively equal number of Saudis and non-Saudis respondents

to ensure more generalization of the findings.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1963), “Toward an understanding of inequity”, Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 422-436.

Aguinis, H. (2009), Performance Management, 2nd ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle

River, NJ.

Aldakhilallah, K. A., and Parente, D. H. (2002), “Redesigning A square peg: Total quality

management performance appraisals”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 39-

51.

Al-Dmour, H., and Awamleh, R. (2002), “Effects of transactional and transformational

leadership styles of sales managers on job satisfaction and self-perceived performance of

sales people: A study of Jordanian manufacturing public shareholding companies”,

Administrative Sciences Series, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 247-261.

Anderson. G.C. (1993), Managing Performance Appraisal Systems. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Babin, B.J. and Boles, J.S. (1998), “Employee behavior in a service environment: A model and

test of potential differences between men and women”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No.

2, pp. 77‐91.

Bach, S. (2005), New directions in performance management, in Bach, S. (Ed.), Managing

Human Resources: Personnel Management in Transition, Blackwell, Oxford.

22

Bartlett, K. R., and Kang, D. (2004), “Training and organizational commitment among nurses

following industry and organizational change in New Zealand and the United States”,

Human Resource Development International, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 423‐440.

Brown, S. P., and Peterson, R. A. (1993), “Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job

satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects”, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 63‐77.

Brown, M., Hyatt, D. and Benson, J. (2010), “Consequences of the performance appraisal

experience”, Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 375-396.

Campbell, D.J., Campbell, K.M., and Chia, H.B. (1998), Merit Pay, performance appraisal, and

individual motivation – An analysis and alternative. Human Resource Management, Vol.

37 No. 2, pp. 131‐146.

Coens, T., and Jenkins, M. (2002), Abolishing performance appraisals: Why they backfire and

what to do instead. San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler.

Dulebohn, J.H., and Ferris, G.R. (1999), “The role of influence tactics in perceptions of

performance evaluations’ fairness”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp.

288‐303.

Fletcher, C. (2004), Appraisal and Feedback: Making Performance Review Work, CIPD;

London.

Fletcher, C. (2001), “Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda”,

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 473-87.

Fletcher, C. (2002), Appraisal: an individual psychological analysis, in Sonnentag, S. (Ed.),

Psychological Management of Individual Performance, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 115-35.

Fletcher, C., and Williams, R. (1996), “Performance management, job satisfaction and

organisational Commitment”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 169‐179.

Fischer, J.A., Sousa-Poza, A. (2009), “Does job satisfaction improve the health of workers? New

evidence using panel data and objective measures of health”, Health Economics, Vol. 18

No. 1, pp. 71-89.

Fried, Y., and Ferris, G.R. (1987), “The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and

ameta analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 287‐322.

Grote, D. (2002), The performance appraisal question and answer book: A survival guide for

managers. New York: AMACOM.

23

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis.

Seventh Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

Heathfield, S. (2007), “Performance appraisals don’t work – what does?”, The Journal for

Quality and Participation, Vol.1 No. 2, pp. 6‐9.

Heneman, R.L. and Werner, J.M. (2005), Merit Pay: Linking Pay to Performance in a Changing

World, 2nd ed., Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Hoyle, R.H. (1995) Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications,

Sage, and Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hooi, L.W. (2012), “Enhancing employee satisfaction: an analysis of current promotion

practices”, International Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 245-269.

Jawahar, I.M. (2007), “The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal

reactions”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 735-754.

Judge, T.A., C.J. Thoreson, J.E. Bono, and G.K. Patton (2001), “The job satisfaction-job

performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin,

Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.

Kemerling, K. R. (2002), The effects of telecommuting on employee productivity: A perspective

from managers, office co-workers and telecommuters. Unpublished PhD Dissertation.

Kuvaas, B. (2006), “Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: the roles

of pay administration and pay level”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3,

pp. 365-85.

Kuvaas, B. (2007), “Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance

appraisal and work performance”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 378-97.

Kuvaas, B. (2011), “The interactive role of performance appraisal reactions and regular

feedback”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 123-137.

Levy, P.E., and Williams, J.R. (2004), “The social context of performance appraisal: a review

and framework for the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 881‐905.

Lind, E.A. and Tyler, Y. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, NY.

Lindholm, N. (1999), “Performance management in Mnc subsidiaries in China: A study of host-

country managers and professionals”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 37

No. 3, pp. 18‐35.

Masterson, S.S., Lewis-McClear, K., Goldman, B.B., and Taylor, S.M. (2000), “Integrating

24

justice and social exchange: The Differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work

outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738‐786.

Millward, N., Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2000), All Change at Work?, Routledge, London.

Murphy, K.R., and Cleveland, J.N. (1991), Performance Appraisal: An Organizational

Perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Murphy, K.R., and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,

Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives, Sage, and Thousand Oaks, CA.

Nankervis, A.T. and Compton, A.R. (2006), “Performance management: Theory in practice?”,

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 83-101.

Narcisse, S. and Harcourt, M. (2008), “Employee fairness perceptions of performance appraisal:

A Saint Lucian case study”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1152-1221.

Neal, J. (2001), The #1 guide to performance appraisals: Doing it right! 3rd Ed. Perrysburg,

Ohio, USA.

Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L.S., Taylor, A.J. and Keillor, B.D. (2001), “Are performance appraisals

a bureaucratic exercise or can they be used to enhance sales-force satisfaction and

commitment?”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 337‐389.

Ployhart, R. E., Lim, C. B., and Chan, K.Y. (2001), “Exploring relations between typical and

maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality”, Personnel

Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4 , pp. 809-843.

Price, J.L. (2001), “Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover”, International Journal

of Manpower, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 600-624.

Pulakos, E.D. (2009), Performance Management A New Approach for Driving Business Results,

John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Redman, T., and Snape, E. (1992), “Upward and onward: can staff appraise their managers?”,

Personnel Review, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 32‐46.

Robbins, S. P., and Coulter, M. (1996), Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rodgers, R., and Hunter, J.E. (1991), “Impact of management by objectives on organizational

Productivity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 322‐358.

Schay, B.W. (1988), “Effect of performance-contingent pay on employee attitudes”, Public

Personnel Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 237-50.

25

Selden, S. C., Ingraham, P. W., and Jacobson, W. (2001), “Human resource practices in state

government: Findings from a national survey”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 61

No. 5, pp. 598‐607.

Sextona, R., McMurtreyb, S., Michalopoulosc, J., and Smithc A. (2005), “Employee turnover: a

neural network solution. Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp.

2635‐2651.

Shields, S. (2007), Managing Employee Performance and Reward, Cambridge University Press,

Sydney.

Smither, R.D. (1998), The Psychology of Work and Human Performance, 3rd Ed. New York,

Longman.

Spector, P.E. (1997), Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

Taylor, P.J. and Pierce, J.L. (1999), “Effects of introducing a performance management system

on employees’ subsequent attitudes and effort”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 28

No. 3, pp. 423-52.

Timperley, H.S. (1998), “Performance appraisal: Principals’ perspectives and some

implications”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 44‐58.

Treadway, D.C., Ferris, G.R., Duke, A.B., Adams, G.L. and Thatcher, J.B. (2007), “The

moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors’ impressions of subordinate

ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 848-55.

Walsh, M.B. (2003), Perceived Fairness of and Satisfaction with Employee Performance

Appraisal. Unpublished PhD Dissertation.

Wiese, D.S. and Buckley, W.R. (1998), “The evolution of the performance appraisal process”,

Journal of Management History, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 233-282.

Youngcourt, S.S., Leiva, P.I. and Jones, R.G. (2007), “Perceived purposes of performance

appraisal: correlates of individual- and position-focused purposes on attitudinal outcomes”,

Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 315-43.

26

Appendix

Effective Performance Appraisal System

Please rate the following according to their importance, in what you believe to be an effective

staff appraisal system should possess:

Rating scheme for each item (Irrelevant / Not Important / Neutral / Important / Essential)

1. Identifies staff development needs

2. Gives senior staff information about staff performance

3. Gives staff evaluative information on their own performance

4. Identifies company development goals

5. Does not threaten staff

6. Enhances collegiality

7. Determines staff promotion

8. Identifies staff for competency proceedings

9. Holds staff accountable

Employee Productivity

Please indicate your perception on the following:

27

1. My productivity, defined as ability to meet or exceed my agreed upon job objectives as

satisfactory (Strongly Disagree / Disagree / Neutral / Agree / Strongly Agree)

Job satisfaction

Please indicate your perception on each of the following about your job:

Rating scheme for each item (Strongly Disagree / Disagree / Neutral / Agree / Strongly Agree)

1. I find that my opinions are respected at work

2. Most people on this job are very satisfied with their work.

3. I am satisfied with the recognition I get for the work I do.

4. I am satisfied with my pay compared with that for similar jobs in other firms.

5. I am satisfied with the workplace relationship between my boss and his/her employees.

6. In general, I am satisfied with this job

Demographic Variables

Your organization can be classified under?

[ ] Manufacturing [ ] Services [ ] Both

What is the nature of your organization's ownership?

[ ] Private [ ] Government [ ] Joint

How many employees in your organization?

[ ] Less than 100 [ ] 100-500 [ ] More than 500

How many years has your organization has been operating?

[ ] 5 years or Less [ ] 6- 10 years [ ] Over 10 years

What level do you occupy in your organization?

[ ] Top manager [ ] Middle manager [ ] Supervisor [ ] other

What is your age?

[ ] 25 years or less [ ] 26-35 years [ ] 36-45 years [ ] 45 years or over

What is your nationality?

[ ] Saudi [ ] Non-Saudi

How many years have you been working in your current organization?

[ ] 5 years or less [ ] 6- 10 years [ ] Over 10 years

28

What is your educational qualification?

[ ] Less than university

[ ] College graduate

[ ] University degree

[ ] Postgraduate degree