Fairness, transparency, and motivational deficits in public utility performance appraisal: Evidence from Zambia

Faith Mwansa Kalaba; Kennedy Msusa

doi:10.51867/ajernet.7.2.24

Authors

Faith Mwansa Kalaba The University of Zambia, Zambia
Kennedy Msusa The University of Zambia, Zambia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.7.2.24

Keywords:

Employee Engagement, Employee Motivation, Fairness Perceptions, Performance Appraisal, Public Utilities, Structural Equation Modeling, Sub-Saharan Africa, Zambia

Abstract

This research examines how management-level staff at a state-owned public utility view the fairness, transparency, and effectiveness of their performance evaluation system, and how these views affect their motivation, engagement, and job performance. Utilizing a comprehensive theoretical framework that incorporates Equity Theory and Goal-Setting Theory, this study adopted a convergent parallel mixed-methods approach. Data collection involved a structured questionnaire distributed to 176 management-level employees chosen through stratified random sampling from five divisions of Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, [ZESCO] Limited, Zambia's state-owned electricity provider, along with semi-structured interviews conducted with 15 purposely selected key informants. Quantitative data were examined using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, multiple regression analyses, and structural equation modeling (SEM), while qualitative data were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis. The results indicate that employees view the appraisal system as considerably below a neutral benchmark in terms of fairness (M = 2.68, SD = 0.96, p < .001), transparency (M = 2.70, SD = 0.98, p < .001), and effectiveness (M = 2.81, SD = 0.94, p = .008). Effectiveness of the system emerged as the most influential factor in predicting motivation (β = 0.376, p < .001) and engagement (β = 0.324, p < .001), while fairness also significantly predicted motivation (β = 0.224, p = .007) and engagement (β = 0.182, p = .047). Employee engagement was found to partially mediate the relationship between effectiveness and performance (Sobel z = 6.13, p < .001), representing 57.4% of the total indirect effect. Notable variations were seen across departments and tenure, with those in technical departments and employees with longer tenures reporting significantly lower perceptions. These findings provide actionable insights for improving performance management in public utilities across Sub-Saharan Africa and enhance the theoretical understanding of the dynamics between justice and motivation in bureaucratic organizational settings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money. Business Horizons, 56, 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.11.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.11.007

Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2020). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice (15th ed.). Kogan Page.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 317-372). John Wiley & Sons.

DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085

Fletcher, C., & Perry, E. (2001). Performance appraisal and feedback: A consideration of national culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Performance appraisal and feedback: A consideration of national culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends (Vol. 2, pp. 127-144). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608320.n8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608320.n8

Fletcher, C., & Williams, R. (1996). Performance management, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. British Journal of Management, 7(2), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00112.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00112.x

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2020). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

OECD. (2021). Performance budgeting in OECD countries. OECD Publishing.

Pinder, C. C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734606 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734606

Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2021). Employee engagement. In V. I. Sessa & N. A. Bowling (Eds.), Essentials of job attitudes and other workplace psychological constructs (pp. 242-271). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429325755-12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429325755-12

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.

World Bank. (2022). Improving public sector performance through innovation and inter-agency coordination. World Bank Group.