Examination of Appraisal Fairness as a Mediator in Explaining Teachers’ Performance Appraisal in Malaysia

Examination of Appraisal Fairness as a Mediator in Explaining Teachers’ Performance Appraisal in Malaysia

Mohd Nadzri Ishak^1*, Mohd Muslim Md Zalli^2*, Muhd Zulhilmi Haron¹, Norliza Abdul Majid²

1 Kedah Education Department, Ministry of Education, Kedah, Malaysia

2 Faculty of Human Development, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Perak, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author: muslim@fpm.upsi.edu,my

Accepted: 15 July 2021 | Published: 1 August 2021

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract: The Teachers Unified Instruments (TUI) is a new performance appraisal instrument to assess the performance of teachers in Malaysia. This research was attended to examine the level of effectiveness of TUI among secondary school teachers in Malaysia. Two characteristics of performance appraisal (clarity of appraisal criteria and teacher participation in the appraisal process) were examined to recognise the relationship with the performance appraisal effectiveness measured based on motivation to improve performance. Appraisal fairness was also included as a mediator in this relationship. A sum of 284 respondents answered the questionnaire made online. The findings revealed that TUI’s effectiveness level was high. Appraisal fairness was found to be the mediating variable that connecting the two evaluation characteristics tested with performance appraisal effectiveness. This study provides definite implications for stakeholders to ensure that the performance appraisal implemented is practised comprehensively, and the practice of appraisal fairness is given great emphasis.

Keywords: performance appraisal, clarity of appraisal criteria, teacher participation, appraisal fairness, motivation to improve performance, performance appraisal effectiveness

_________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

The Teachers Unified Instruments (TUI) is a new performance appraisal instrument that was introduced by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) in 2015. TUI is a specific instrument to evaluate the performance appraisal of school teachers in Malaysia. This instrument was developed based on the concept of job-based workplace. Since its introduction in 2015, no empirical studies were conducted to evaluate its effectiveness. Nevertheless, the survey on teachers’ satisfaction with the TUI process recorded that the percentage of dissatisfaction among them was relatively high (BPPK, 2017).

The effectiveness of the performance appraisal process is essential. It is because performance appraisal determines numerous human resource management (HRM) decision. According to Rubin and Edwards (2018), a robust performance appraisal should be specific and require various engagements. Although TUI was developed, acknowledging these stated constituents, this assessment’s effectiveness was not empirically proven yet. Therefore, this research analysed the significance of clarity of appraisal criteria and teacher participation in influencing the effectiveness of TUI.

2. Literature Review

Researchers often dispute the performance appraisal effectiveness. Till now researchers still debate the dimensions of performance appraisal’s effectiveness (Selvarajan et al., 2018).

Besides, they suggested various dimensions to gauge the effectiveness of the assessment. Some of the conventional dimensions that were often employed are the perception of the utility of appraisal (Iqbal et al., 2019), the accuracy of appraisal (Sánchez et al., 2019), the fairness of appraisal (Okoth & Florah, 2019), teachers’ empowerment (Yusoff, Ariffin & Zalli, 2020), satisfaction of appraisal (Dal Corso et al., 2019) and motivation to improve performance (Al- Jedaia & Mehrez, 2020; Novita & Sudaryan, 2021). However, a broad literature review concluded that motivation to improve performance is a more dominant dimension in representing measurements for performance appraisal effectiveness.

Motivation to improve performance refers to employees’ internal motivation to improve their performance and commitment towards better achievement due to the performance appraisal process. The drive to improve performance occurs when employees perceive that they have been well evaluated and commensurate with the efforts they manifest (Islami et al., 2018).

Studies found that performance appraisal immediately influences the motivation to improve employees’ performance for an organisation (Islami et al., 2018).

Factors influencing the performance appraisal effectiveness.

This study considered motivation to improve performance as a dimension to measure the performance appraisal effectiveness. Based on Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) (Deci &

Ryan, 1985), individuals will determine their reaction to the performance appraisal process based on their level of autonomy and competence in performing their duties (Wang et al., 2020). These individual reactions will determine their level of motivation to adapt. To ensure a positive reaction, teachers need to be involved and clear with the appraisal criteria implemented.

Clarity of criteria offers transparency and straight forward explanation regarding the implementation criteria of performance appraisal to improve the task (Kelly et al., 2008).

Clarity of performance appraisal criteria is critical because it can increase the performance appraisal effectiveness (Islami et al., 2018). A study by Idris and Assefa (2017) discovered that employees and evaluators who know and understand their performance appraisal would be more satisfied and motivated to perform their tasks. If they were not told what to do, they would only act on what they feel is right. Based on the findings of previous studies, the hypothesis of this study was formed as follows:

H1 There is a positive and significant relationship between clarity of appraisal criteria and motivation to improve performance.

Teachers’ participation implies the involvement of teachers in the performance appraisal sessions conducted. Teachers’ participation is also an element that is emphasised during the implementation of TUI. Teachers will feel that the evaluation they undergo is more reliable and beneficial when involved in the appraisal process. Instead, one-way performance appraisal will cause the effectiveness of performance appraisal to be low (Khurshid et al., 2017). Studies conducted determined that employee participation in performance appraisal would contribute to positive employee feedback, which would increase the effectiveness of performance appraisal (Rubin & Edwards, 2018).

H2 There is a positive and significant relationship between teachers’ participation and motivation to improve performance.

The mediating role of appraisal fairness

Based on equity theory (Adams, 1965), employees would evaluate performance appraisal’s effectiveness based on their fairness. Evaluators’ fairness during the performance appraisal process would increase employee motivation (Selvarajan et al., 2018). The constructs of appraisal fairness consist of the dimensions of distributive justice (rating of efficacy), procedural fairness (perception of fairness of the procedures performed) and interactional justice (fairness of appraisal services). Employees’ perceptions of this construct of appraisal fairness were expected to determine the level of motivation to improve employee performance (Khurshid et al., 2017). Therefore, this research studied the significance of appraisal fairness as a mediator in the relationship between clarity of criteria and teachers participation with the motivation to improve performance. In an attempt to recognise the significance of fairness in this appraisal, the following hypotheses were formed:

H3 Appraisal fairness acts positively and significantly as a mediator in the relationship between clarity of criteria and motivation to improve performance.

H4 Appraisal fairness acts positively and significantly as a mediator in the relationship between teachers participation and motivation to improve performance.

3. Methodology Sample

This research included all secondary school teachers who were assessed using TUI instruments in 2018. Based on the report published by BPPK in 2019, there were 154,192 teachers assessed.

For that, 382 teachers were needed as a study sample (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). The study sample was selected at simple random. Respondents were contacted through their respective school principals via email and they were provided with a survey link to answer the research instrument.

Instruments

This research instrument was developed by adapting the items from the previous published study. Items were translated from English to Malay through the back-to-back-translation method using two linguists (Polit & Beck, 2010). The questionnaire was developed using a five-point interval ranking scale “1 = strongly disagree”, “2 = disagree”, “3 = neutral”, “4 = agree “, and “5 = strongly agree”.

Clarity of appraisal criteria: This item was measured by adapting Kelly et al. (2008). An example of item used was “the performance appraisal process is transparent”. The overall alpha value of this question item was .76.

Teacher participation: Giles & Mossholder (1990) items were adapted to measure this dimension. An example of item was, “evaluator asks me to share views related to my performance”. The alpha value of this item was .90.

Appraisal fairness: Appraisal fairness was formed from three sub-dimensions, particularly distributive fairness, procedural fairness and interactional fairness. Distributive fairness were adapted from Saad & Elshaer (2017) with an alpha value of .88. An example of this item was

“the performance appraisal process results are justified based on my performance”. Procedural

fairness was measured based on items adapted from Saad (2014). An example of question was

“performance appraisal procedure is bias-free” and an alpha value of .90. Interactional fairness was adapted from Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009) with an alpha value of .94. An example of this item was “evaluators treat me with respect”.

Motivation to improve performance: Items to measure motivation were adapted from Lira et al. (2016). An example of this item was “performance appraisal encourages me to improve my performance”. The alpha value of this item was .96.

Data analysis techniques

The structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was used in this study. The analysis was conducted using SmartPLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015). The PLS-SEM approach was used because this technique could run the measurement model as well as the structural model to the various relationships simultaneously and, in turn, could provide measurement values more accurately.

Convergence validity was assessed through factor loadings value, average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). The rule of thumb for factor loading value should exceed .7, the AVE value should also exceed .5, while the CR value should exceed .7 (Hair et al., 2017). The discriminant validity was determined by comparing the construct correlation’s value with the square root of the construct’s AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Structural model testing was done to obtain the path coefficient’s value (Hair et al., 2017). For this test, a bootstrapping procedure with a re-sample value up to 5000 was applied.

4. Findings

The descriptive analysis shows that the mean values for each variable were at medium and high levels (Table 1). According to Pallant (2016), the mean inclination level between 1.0 to 2.33 is low, 2.34 to 3.66 is moderate, and 3.67 to 5.00 is high. The clarity of the criteria (Mean = 3.53, SD = .40) was moderate. While the teachers’ participation variables (Mean = 3.71, SD = .62), appraisal fairness (Mean = 3.80, SD = .53), and motivation to improve performance (Mean = 3.94, SD = .68) were at a high level.

Table 1: Descriptive analysis of variables

Construct Standard Deviation Mean Level

Clarity of criteria .40 3.53 Moderate

Teacher participation .62 3.71 High

Appraisal fairness .53 3.80 High

Motivation to improve performance .68 3.94 High

From the measurement model, all factor loading values for each item were above .7, AVE value exceeded .5 and CR value exceeded .7 (Table 2). These findings indicated that the data satisfy the criteria of convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017). The Fornell &

Larcker (1981) criterion was also applied to determine the discriminant validity of the variables (Table 3).

Table 2: Factor loadings, alpha, AVE, and CR values for each construct

1st order Construct 2nd order Construct Item Loading Alpha AVE CR

Clarity of criteria (JK) JK1 .85 .76 .67 .86

JK2 .80 JK4 .80

Teachers participation (PP) PP1 .87 .90 .71 .93

PP2 .76 PP3 .82 PP4 .89 PP5 .89

Distributive fairness (KD) KD1 .84 .88 .73 .92

KD2 .91

KD3 .76

KD4 .90

Procedural fairness (KP) KP1 .89 .90 .78 .93

KP2 .87 KP3 .86 KP4 .57 KP5 .87

Interactional fairness (KI) KI1 .92 .94 .89 .96

KI2 .94 KI3 .94 Appraisal fairness

(AF)

KD .91 .93 .56 .94

KP .93

KI .83

Motivation to improve performance (MV)

MV1 .89 .96 .85 .96

MV2 .93

MV3 .94

MV4 .93

MV5 .92

Table 3: Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker Criteria)

Construct 1 2 3 4

Clarity of criteria 0.82 Teacher participation 0.76 0.85

Appraisal fairness 0.74 0.76 0.75 Motivation to improve performance 0.64 0.59 0.69 0.92

Bootstrapping analysis was adopted to determine the effectiveness coefficients. The findings of this analysis are shown in Table 4. The findings indicated three hypotheses were accepted and one was rejected. The analysis results proved that the relationship between the clarity of the criteria (β = .28, p<.01) and motivation to improve performance was positive and significant. Nevertheless, the relationship between teacher participation and motivation to improve performance was not significant (β = .04, p>.05). The results of the analysis also confirmed that the role of appraisal fairness was highlighted in this study. Both hypotheses involving the role of appraisal fairness as mediator were supported. Therefore, appraisal fairness acted as a mediator in this relationship.

Table 4: Path coefficient analysis

Hypothesis Path Beta value SD T-value P-value Results

H1 JK → MV .28 .09 3.14 .001* Accepted

H2 PP → MV .04 .08 0.43 .332 Rejected

H3 JK→ AF → MV .21 .05 4.15 .000* Accepted

H4 PP → AF → MV .18 .05 3.82 .000* Accepted

*p< .01

JK = clarity of criteria, PP = teacher participation, AF = appraisal fairness, MV = motivation to improve performance

5. Discussion

This study intended to test the relationship between the clarity of appraisal criteria and teacher participation in appraisal with performance appraisal effectiveness. Studies were also conducted to test the significance of appraisal fairness as mediators in this relationship. This study was also attended to determine the effectiveness of TUI in evaluating teachers’

performance in Malaysia.

Generally, the findings noted that teacher in Malaysian secondary schools were satisfied with the TUI. Teachers also declared that the TUI process implemented was effective. These findings were shown through the mean value of motivation to improve performance (mean = 3.94) was at a high level (Pallant, 2016). It implied that teachers acknowledged that the current TUI implementation process is effective. These findings also show that the implementation of TUI also helped teachers to improve their work performance in achieving organisational targets.

As recommended by previous researchers, clarity of performance appraisal criteria is fundamental to produce a fair performance appraisal (Idris & Assefa, 2017). The findings of this study also corroborated the findings of previous researchers. Clarity of appraisal criteria had a positive and significant relationship with the performance appraisal effectiveness. It shows that the efforts Ministry of Education in explaining the criteria found in TUI are pertinent. Hence, it indicated that teachers’ understanding of TUI criteria had increased their motivation to achieve organisational targets.

Teachers’ participation in the performance appraisal process is an essential feature of the appraisal process. Nonetheless, the findings implied that teachers’ participation did not have a significant relationship with motivation to improve performance. The conclusions of this study rejected the hypotheses made. However, these findings supported a study directed by Arsaythamby & Wirda Hasmin (2011), who found that this construct did not affect teacher performance appraisal effectiveness in Malaysia. This situation occurred because employees’

participation in the TUI process happened at the appraisal stage only. Therefore, teachers were not involved in the overall performance appraisal process, which was expected to influence their perceptions of performance appraisal effectiveness.

The analysis confirmed that the significance of appraisal fairness as mediator in this study played a critical role. Appraisal fairness influenced teachers’ perceptions of the relationship between clarity of criteria and their participation in performance appraisal effectiveness.

Initially, the direct relationship between teachers’ participation and appraisal effectiveness was not significant, but a significant relationship was shown when appraisal fairness served as mediator. It proved that appraisal fairness is important in the implementation of TUI.

Therefore, evaluators must concentrate on ensuring that appraisal fairness is practised in the performance appraisal process.

6. Conclusion and implications

Studies related to the performance appraisal effectiveness in education are relatively lacking (Dandala, 2019), and even performance appraisal studies focused on teachers in Malaysia are still limited. Therefore, this research is essential in explaining the character of performance appraisal that determining the effectiveness of appraisal measured through teachers’

perceptions of motivation to improve performance. Finding shows that teachers agreed that the implementation of TUI in Malaysia is effective. At the same time, the teacher also asserted that the implementation of this appraisal process is fair.

This study’s implications validated that the performance appraisal process currently in place and beneficial. The administration and evaluation procedures that outlined through the TUI manual (BPPK, 2016) are very relevant in ensuring that the implementation process of TUI can achieve its objectives. The characteristics considered (clarity of criteria, teachers’

participation) in this study should be given in-depth attention by TUI implementers and policymakers to ensure that this appraisal is always relevant in improving teachers’

competencies, potential, and quality (Haron et al., 2021). At the same time, the practice of appraisal fairness also must be emphasised from time to time.

Although this study’s outcomes had a positive effect on the effectiveness of the implementation process of TUI, this study involved the appraised teachers only. It is recommended that more extensive study involving appraiser should be applied to obtain a more comprehensive notion of the effectiveness of TUI. Furthermore, more study should be conducted involving other performance appraisal constructs to determine what constructs influence performance appraisal effectiveness.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology, pp. 267-299. New York: Academic Press.

Al-Jedaia, Y., & Mehrez, A. (2020). The effect of performance appraisal on job performance in governmental sector: The mediating role of motivation. Management Science Letters, 10(9), 2077–2088. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.2.003

Arsaythamby, V., & Wirda Hasmin, Z. (2011). Atribut sistem penilaian prestasi dengan kepuasan kerja dalam kalangan guru. International Journal of Management Studies, 18(1), 197–216.

BPPK. (2016). Manual penilaian bersepadu pegawai perkhidmatan pendidikan. Bahagian Pembangunan dan Penilaian Kompetensi, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

BPPK. (2017). Laporan pengurusan PBPPP 2017. Bahagian Pembangunan dan Penilaian Kompetensi, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Dal Corso, L., De Carlo, A., Carluccio, F., Girardi, D., & Falco, A. (2019). An Opportunity to Grow or a Label? Performance Appraisal Justice and Performance Appraisal Satisfaction to Increase Teachers’ Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(November), 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02361

Dandala, S. (2019). Human resource policy and teacher appraisal in Ontario in the era of professional accountability. Management in Education, 33(1), 5–10.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618783817

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press

Fornell C & Larcker F David. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. In Journal of Marketing Research (Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp.

39–50).

Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 371–377.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.4.371

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Haron, M. Z., Zalli, M. M. M., Othman, M. K., & Awang, M. I. (2021). Examining the teachers’

pedagogical knowledge and learning facilities towards teaching quality. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1), 1-7.

doi:10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20780

Idris, A. H., & Assefa, T. H. (2017). Assessment of instructors ’ performance appraisal in Samara University. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 8(6), 441–448.

Iqbal, M. Z., Akbar, S., Budhwar, P., & Shah, S. Z. A. (2019). Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Evidence on the utilization criteria. Journal of Business Research, 101(April), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.035

Islami, X., Mulolli, E., & Mustafa, N. (2018). Using management by objectives as a performance appraisal tool for employee satisfaction. Future Business Journal, 4(1), 94–

108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2018.01.001

Kelly, K. O., Ang, S. Y. A., Chong, W. L., & Hu, W. S. (2008). Teacher appraisal and its outcomes in Singapore primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-09-2016-0047

Khurshid, A., Khan, A. K., & Alvi, S. (2017). Performance appraisal challenge at Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Asian Journal of Management Cases, 14(2), 198–225.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0972820117712304

Lira, M., Silva, V. P. G. da, & Viseu, C. (2016). Performance appraisal as a motivational tool in the Portuguese public administration. Portuguese Journal of Finance, Management and Accounting, 19(2), 91–118.

Novita, A. & Sudaryan, B. (2021). The analysis of principal academic supervision, pedagogical competence against and its implications for contract teacher performance: Case study in high school indramayu district. Asian Journal of Research in Education and Social Sciences, 3(1), 84-89.

Okoth, A. A., & Florah, O. M. (2019). Influence of performance appraisal on motivation of public secondary school teachers in Gem-Sub County, Kenya. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 9(4), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.30845/aijcr.v9n4p5 Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual (6th ed.). Open University Press.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research:

Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11), 1451–1458.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS3.0. Hamburg.

http://www.smartplas.com

Rubin, E. V., & Edwards, A. (2018). The performance of performance appraisal systems:

understanding the linkage between appraisal structure and appraisal discrimination complaints. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5192, 1–20.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1424015

Saad, S. K. (2014). Investigating the effectiveness of the performance appraisal process in the Egyptian tourism companies. Journal of Association of Arab Universities for Toursim and

Hospitality, 11(2), 111–121.

Saad, S. K., & Elshaer, I. A. (2017). Organizational politics and validity of layoff decisions:

mediating role of distributive justice of performance appraisal. Journal of Hospitality

Marketing and Management, 26(8), 805–828.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1320257

Sánchez, C. R., Díaz-Cabrera, D., & Hernández-Fernaud, E. (2019). Does effectiveness in performance appraisal improve with rater training? PLoS ONE, 14(9), 1–20.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222694

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business, a skill-building approach (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Selvarajan, T. T., Singh, B., & Solansky, S. (2018). Performance appraisal fairness, leader member exchange and motivation to improve performance: A study of US and Mexican employees. Journal of Business Research, 85(April 2016), 142–154.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.043

Wang, Z., Sun, Y., & Wang, B. (2020). Policy cognition is more effective than step tariff in promoting electricity saving behaviour of residents. Energy Policy, 139(December 2018), 111338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111338

Yusoff, S. M., Ariffin, T. F. T., & Zalli, M. M. M. (2020). School participation empowerment scale (SPES) adaptation for teachers in malaysia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(5), 1821-1830. doi:10.13189/ujer.2020.080518

Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 93–105.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.08.001