RESULTS & DATA ANALYSIS

The obtained data was subjected to three types of quantitative analysis namely, descriptive analysis,
correlational analysis, and simple regression analysis using SPSS version23. This was followed by a
qualitative analysis of the interview responses obtained.

Descriptive Analysis: In the descriptive analysis, the means and standard deviations of the
performance appraisal scores, intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and general satisfaction
were computed. These have been reported in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations of Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Three
Dimensions of Job Satisfaction

PAS Intrinsic Extrinsic General

Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
Mean 3. 63 45.07 21.58 74.75
Std. 0.63 9.58 5.340 15.10
Deviation
Norms 2.63-3.83 40.99-56.07 16.94-25.7 65.96-89.8

In the above table, the performance appraisal satisfaction means of 108 employees working across 26
organisations is found to be 3.63 (SD=0.63). According to Katavich(2013) the normative range of
values for performance appraisal satisfaction means is 2.63-3.83. Therefore, the value obtained for
the current study (3.63), falls in the average range of values, though at a slightly higher end.

Further, as can be seen in the above table, the intrinsic satisfaction mean for the employees is 45.07
(SD=9.58). According to the norms stated by Weiss et al. (1967), the average range of values
become 40.99- 56.07. Therefore, accordingly, the mean of intrinsic satisfaction for the current study
falls in the average range, though at a slightly lower end.

The average range of values for extrinsic satisfaction is 16.94- 25.7(Weiss et al., 1967). The value of
extrinsic satisfaction mean for the current study is 21.58(SD=5.34). This means that the employees
have an average level of extrinsic satisfaction with their organisations. The value however indicates
that the mean is at the higher end of the average range.
According to Weiss et al (1967), the general satisfaction normative range, ranges from 65.96-89.8.
The mean value obtained in the current research (74.75, SD=15.10) indicates that the employees are
averagely satisfied with their organisations. The above result holds true even when Indian norms as
given by Sud and Singhal (2018) are used (where the mean for females is 73.12 and for males the
mean is 71.17)

Correlational analysis: Following the descriptive analysis, the Pearson correlational analysis was
done to ascertain the strength of the relationship between the two variables – performance appraisal
satisfaction and job satisfaction (in terms of its three sub-components). A correlation is a statistical
measure that indicates the extent to which two or more variables fluctuate together. A
positive correlation indicates the extent to which those variables increase or decrease in parallel; a
negative correlation indicates the extent to which one variable increases as the other decreases. Its
value ranges from -1 to +1. However, in none of the cases does a correlation imply causation.

Table 2: Correlation matrix of PAS and the sub dimensions of JS

JS PAS p value

Intrinsic Satisfaction 0.511 0.000

Extrinsic Satisfaction 0.637 0.000
General Satisfaction 0.606 0.000

The correlation is interpreted using the guidelines given by Cohen (1998), according to which a
correlation coefficient between 0.1 to 0.29 may be considered as low; between 0.3 to 0.409 be
regarded as moderate, and 0.5 to 1 may be considered as high.

As can be seen from Table 2, the correlation value of performance appraisal satisfaction and intrinsic
satisfaction is significant at .01 level (r=0.511). According to Cohen (1998), the correlation value is
high. This lends support to one of the research hypotheses which stated that, ‘There will be a
significant and positive relationship between performance appraisal satisfaction and intrinsic
satisfaction of employees.

The correlation between performance appraisal satisfaction and extrinsic satisfaction is positive and
significant at .01 level of significance (r=0.637). Thus, hypothesis H1C (There will be a significant
and positive relationship between performance appraisal satisfaction and extrinsic satisfaction of
employees) of the study is accepted. It can be further seen that the correlation between performance
appraisal satisfaction and extrinsic satisfaction is higher (r=0.637) than the correlation between
performance appraisal satisfaction intrinsic satisfaction (r=0.511). This means that performance
appraisal satisfaction is more related to external factors causing satisfaction at work than internal
factors leading to work satisfaction. The reasons for the same have been discussed in the Discussion
section.
Similarly, since the correlation value of performance appraisal satisfaction and general satisfaction is
significant at .01 level (r=.606), hypothesis H1A which stated that ‘there will be a significant and
positive relationship between performance appraisal satisfaction and general satisfaction of
employees’, is also accepted. The high positive relation between the two variables means that as
performance appraisal satisfaction increases, general job satisfaction also increases or vice -versa and
as performance appraisal satisfaction decreases, general job satisfaction also decreases or vice -versa.

Simple regression analysis

The third statistical technique to be used was that of Simple or Linear Regression. Linear
regression is a linear approach for modelling the relationship between a scalar dependent variable
and one or more explanatory variables (or independent variables). In the present study, only one
predictor variable– performance appraisal satisfaction was studied to assess its impact on various
components of job satisfaction. Table 3 reports the results of simple regression analysis.

Table 3: Simple Regression Analysis

Predictor Criterion R R2 F Sig

Performance Intrinsic 0.511 0.262 37.548 0.000

Appraisal Satisfaction
Satisfaction Extrinsic 0.637 0.406 72.312 0.000
Satisfaction
General 0.606 0.368 61.604 0.000
Satisfaction
According to Cohen (1989) higher the variance of R square, higher is the variance in the dependent
variables due to the independent variable. It can be seen from table 3 that all the results of regression
were found to be statistically significant (p<0.01).

The value of R2 for performance appraisal satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction is 0.262. This
implies that performance appraisal satisfaction significantly contributes to 26.2% variance in
intrinsic satisfaction of the employees in the current research. Therefore, it also means that 73.8%
(100-26.2) variance in intrinsic satisfaction scores is due to factors not included in the current study.
Such factors have been discussed in the Discussion section of the study.

Further, it can be seen that performance appraisal satisfaction significantly contributes to 40.6%
variance in extrinsic satisfaction scores of the employees (R2 =0.406). Therefore, 59.4% variance in
extrinsic satisfaction scores of the employees is explained by the factors, not a part of the current
study. It must further be seen that performance appraisal satisfaction contributes to greater variance
in the extrinsic satisfaction of the employees as compared to the intrinsic satisfaction of the
employees. The reasons for the same have been discussed in the following section.

Finally, performance appraisal satisfaction contributes to 36.8% variance in the general job
satisfaction of the employees. The reasons for the same have been discussed in the following section.
Further, this translates to the fact that 63.2% variance in the general job satisfaction is caused by
factors not investigated in the current research.

Qualitative Analysis

One participant each from every organization was interviewed following the administering of the
questionnaires. This was done to attain a better understanding of the performance appraisal system
functioning in the participant’s organization. Questions were asked about the appraiser, frequency of
appraisal, criteria for appraisal, awareness about the system and so on. A detailed qualitative analysis
of all the sample organizations has been attached in the appendix.

Table 4 shows the analysis of the performance appraisal process followed by 26 organizations in the
Delhi- NCR region. The table has been attached in the appendix section.

It can be seen from the table that 20 out of 26 organizations i.e. 76.92% of the organizations have an
annual performance appraisal system in place. The remaining 6 organizations have a bi-annual
system of appraisal (23.08% of the organisations).
Further according to Table 4, performance in 26 out of 26 organizations (100%) is appraised by the
manager, either on their own or along with the appraisee’s peers or one’s own self (360 feedback).
14 out of 26 organizations (53.85%) rate their employees on the basis of some kind of a goal setting
technique (Management by Objectives). Some of these organisations also have a rating scale system
in place to assess their employees’ performance. 11 out of 26 (42.31%) organizations using rating
scales to evaluate their employees. 2 organisations (7.6%) use a bell- shaped employee comparison
method, where the employees are evaluated on a comparative basis, putting them into the categories
of low, average or high performers. Employees from one of the organisations reported the use of a
scatter plot technique (four quadrant plotting) Employee performance in one of the organisations was
assessed on the basis the facets of inclusiveness, knowledge, entrepreneurship and empowerment and
productivity (IKEEP).
As evident from table 4, employees from 19 organisations (73.07%) showed an adequate awareness
of the performance appraisal process being followed in their respective organisations. Responses
from employees of 6 organisations (23.08%) indicated that they had less than adequate awareness of
the performance appraisal system. One of the responses (3.85%) indicated that the employee of a
particular organisation had some awareness about the performance appraisal system.

Table 4 further shows that frequency and the type of performance appraisal review or feedback
review done in the organisations. 10 out of 26 organisations (38.46%) have a combination of formal
and informal feedback review system present. 3 out of 26 (11.54%) organisations reported having a
formal feedback review system in place and that the informal feedback was provided to them as and
when necessary. Employees from 4 organisations (15.38%) reported having a regular feedback
review, however, not specifying whether it is formal or informal. Employees from 6 (23.08%)
organisations reported not having a feedback review system in their respective organisations at all.
One of these 6 organisations, however, reported having a grievance mechanism in place. This
indicates that the organisations ,on the whole , do have some review system in place, though system
is not very regularly used.

Employees also reported on the strengths and limitations of the performance appraisal system and
process in their organisation. While the employees felt that the fairness of the system, transparency,
ability to set one’s own goals as some of the strengths of the system, they also mentioned certain
weaknesses of the system as well. Lack of review process, a lengthy performance appraisal system
were cited a some of the weaknesses of the system. Employees also gave some suggestions for
improvement within their organisations. According to them, for example, a performance review
system will help to bring about greater transparency in the system.
The detailed table with all the employee responses have ben attached in the appendix section.