Winter 1993 // Volume 31 // Number 4 // Feature Articles // 4FEA3
 |  |
 |
Performance Appraisal. How Extension agents view the system.
Abstract
Agents are trained professionals and wish to be treated as professionals when they're evaluated on job performance. They want to know what's expected of them, have the system explained to them in advance, and be told in a professional manner whether they're accomplishing the job and supervisory expectations. A well-designed and well-executed performance appraisal system in the CES which includes these elements could lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness, and improved employee morale in the Cooperative Extension System.
Performance appraisal in the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) concerns all employees. It influences employee motivation, work performance, and educational program effectiveness. Program success hinges largely on the performance of county agents in the field. Therefore, performance appraisal is a critical management function.
Research on performance appraisal in CES is limited. The American Institutes for Research developed and recommended a CES performance evaluation system.1 Performance evaluation studies in Ohio2 and Virginia3 revealed views of administrators and agents regarding currently used appraisal instruments and procedures. No work comparing an appraisal system in use with a preferred or ideal system has been reported. We felt such a study would indicate strengths and deficiencies in the system as seen by the county agents being appraised. This information could then be used to improve the system. We also felt a multistate study would be more useful than a single-state study in capturing the uniqueness of different systems.4
Methodology
The study was confined to state Extension Services in the southern region of the United States. The basic criterion for including a state was use of a numerical scoring system. Seven states had such a system. Of these, six-Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas-agreed to participate.
A proportionate random sample of 602 agents was selected from state personnel lists. Data were collected using a mailed questionnaire consisting of 56 statements on various aspects of the performance appraisal system. Agents were asked to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with how these aspects were being administered (present process) as well as how they'd like to see them administered (ideal process). A seven-point Likert-type scale was used. A total of 588 responses (93.8%) was received.
The statements were grouped by the authors into 15 descriptive categories of the process. Category means were calculated for the present and ideal process by dividing the scores by the number of statements so the original scale range of 1-7 was preserved. Students' t-test (dependent) was used to determine statistically significant category differences between the ideal and present process.
Findings
Present and Ideal Process Compared
Table 1 shows the number of statements in each category, category means for the present and ideal process, differences between category means, and t values. All 15 category comparisons between perceptions of the present and ideal process were statistically significant.
| Table 1. Agents' perceptions of performance appraisal processes. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appraisal category | No. of statements | Ideal process mean | Present process mean | Difference (present-ideal) | t value* |
| Knowledge of agents' relative rank | 3 | 3.58 | 5.80 | 2.22 | -22.2 |
| Satisfied with evaluation form | 1 | 1.96 | 4.05 | 2.09 | -22.2 |
| Use of evaluation form | 2 | 1.70 | 3.73 | 2.03 | -25.9 |
| Frequency of supervisory observation | 1 | 1.99 | 3.79 | 1.80 | -18.7 |
| Proper training of evaluator | 1 | 1.62 | 3.31 | 1.69 | -21.0 |
| Use of appraisal scores | 4 | 2.53 | 3.83 | 1.30 | -18.8 |
| Goals of appraisal interview | 2 | 2.42 | 3.71 | 1.29 | -17.3 |
| Evaluation form explanation | 4 | 1.80 | 2.96 | 1.16 | -21.0 |
| Scope of items in evaluation form | 6 | 1.09 | 2.98 | 1.09 | -18.9 |
| Evaluation of educational performance | 4 | 2.01 | 2.80 | .79 | -16.5 |
| Purpose of appraisal process | 9 | 2.65 | 3.40 | .75 | -20.4 |
| Relationship of appraisal- plan of work | 3 | 2.25 | 2.97 | .72 | -14.9 |
| Who evaluates | 8 | 4.25 | 4.76 | .51 | -13.7 |
| Agent recourse to contest score | 2 | 3.63 | 3.88 | .25 | -4.7 |
| Agent knowledge of score | 6 | 3.89 | 3.80 | (-).09 | 2.7 |
| * All values significant at p < .01. | |||||
The only category in which agents agreed that the present process was appropriate was their being told the score they received from supervisors.
In the other 14 categories, agents felt the present process fell short of the ideal. The difference ranged from a low of .25 on whether agents should have some recourse if they disagreed with their supervisor to a high of 2.22 on knowing how they ranked with other agents in the state. In all these categories, it appears agents would like to see changes made to increase their satisfaction with the system. Here are the percentages of agents who agreed with the situations described by the statements:
- 78% weren't informed of how they ranked with their peers in
the county or area; 80% wanted to know how they compared to others.
- 88% agreed that if they were satisfied with the evaluation form,
they'd feel more comfortable with the process.
- 95% wanted supervisors to help agents grow personally, become
more competent, and improve performance by using the system both as a
score card and a counseling tool.
- 91% wanted supervisors to observe their work more often (3-4
times per year).
- 96% wanted evaluators to receive proper training in performance
appraisal.
- 66% agreed scores should be used for merit pay, determining
promotions, and inservice training needs, and cited this as a strong
reason for supervisors to be objective in assigning unbiased scores.
- 82% wanted supervisors to discuss career goals and opportunities
during the interview to help agents invest their time wisely and make
use of opportunities.
- 90% agreed the appraisal process would be improved if the form
and procedures were properly explained and they could ask questions
during the annual interview.
- 93% wanted to be evaluated on all aspects of planning,
execution, evaluation, and reporting.
- 91% wanted to be evaluated on written material produced,
teaching ability, and performance and advisory committee effectiveness.
- 94% agreed they should and 82% indicated they did take the
appraisal process and the score seriously. Agents agreed that the
purposes of the performance appraisal were to make them more effective
(91%), evaluate the quality of their work (98%), and their ability to
perform the job (92%), and provide feedback (92%). On the other hand,
destructive criticism of performance shouldn't be a purpose (88%).
- 87% wanted to see the appraisal process related to the annual
plan of work and to include in the plan an objective to improve agent
performance through a management by objectives approach.
- 68% didn't want an individual supervisor (county or district)
having sole responsibility for the evaluation; 50% wanted a team of
well-trained individuals to do the task.
- 92% wanted an established method of recourse for agents if they
disagreed with the supervisors' scores.
- 96% wanted to know and 78% were in fact told their scores so they could learn their strengths and weaknesses.
System Features and Perception
We felt agent perceptions would be influenced by some critical features of the system. Of the six states in the study, two had a weighted scoring system, five a management by objectives approach, four a stated use for the performance appraisal system, and two a built-in appeal process. We found perceptions of agents were more favorable in states with more of these features. The literature generally supports this finding on three features, namely use of a weighted scoring system, management by objectives, and stated use.5 The fourth feature, a stated appeal process, hasn't been reported.
Implications
The present performance appraisal process for county agents in the participating states was perceived by agents to have several deficiencies or limitations. They believe the system can be improved if: (1) supervisors conducting agent evaluations are well-trained, and periodically retrained, and increase the frequency and length of time they spend observing agents on the job; (2) agents are evaluated on the wide range of duties they have to perform using an appropriate evaluation form which is periodically reviewed; and (3) the evaluation process promotes personal and professional growth and competence, facilitates cooperation and communication between supervisors and agents, is related to the agent's plan of work, incorporates a management by objectives approach, and provides evaluation feedback.
A team approach to performance appraisal, rather than the current single-supervisor evaluation, is favored by agents and merits consideration. More than one-half of the agents wanted to be evaluated by a three-person team-made up of the county supervisor, district supervisor, and state/district specialist.
Four features of the appraisal system-weighted scoring system, management by objectives, a stated use, and an appeal process-which were positively related to favorable agent perception, should be considered for incorporation by state Extension Services into their systems.
Agents are trained professionals and wish to be treated as professionals when they're evaluated on job performance. They want to know what's expected of them, have the system explained to them in advance, and be told in a professional manner whether they're accomplishing the job and supervisory expectations.
A well-designed and well-executed performance appraisal system in the CES which includes these elements could lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness, and improved employee morale in the Cooperative Extension System.
Footnotes
1. C. P. Hahn, G. B. Brumback and D. S. Edwards, Development of a Performance Evaluation System (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture by American Institutes for Research, 1979).
2. B. C. Potts, "An Evaluation of the Performance Appraisal System Used by The Ohio Cooperative Extension Service" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1984); K. S. Shiao, "Extension Personnel Selection and Performance Appraisal: Its Accuracy and Relevance" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1982); E. L. Van Tilburg, "Factors Associated with the Turnover Intentions of Ohio Cooperative Extension County Agents" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1985); and B. Vogt and E. L. Van Tilburg, "Ohio Cooperative Extension Service Agents Perceptions of the Agent Rating Methods of the Performance Appraisal System," Journal of Agricultural Education, XXX (No. 1, 1989), 60-67.
3. A.K. Wolfork, "An Analysis of the Effects of Race and Gender in Scoring Extension Agent Performance Standards" (Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 1986).
4. W. L. Davis, "Perceptions of Performance Appraisal by Cooperative Extension Service Agents in Selected Southern States" (Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 1991).
5. Hahn, Brumback, and Edwards, Development of a Performance Evaluation System.