gender differential paper IJCRB

ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011
VOL 3, NO 2
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Effectiveness of PMS (n=100)
Mean Std. Deviation Cronbach Alpha
Effectiveness of PMS (overall) 3.65 .443 0.7
C1= Performance appraisal system helps me to do my job better. 4.15 .936
C2= Performance appraisal system helps me to develop my skill
and potential.
4.01 .904
C3= The objectives/performance standards agree with my manager
are realistic
3.77 .952
C4= I get useful feedbacks from my performance management
review.
3.67 1.055
C5= I am not satisfied with the way my manager/team leader
conducts my performance review.
3.17 .985
C6= Assessments of my performance are consistent, fair and
unbiased
3.75 .936
C7= I feel motivated after a review meeting. 3.82 .857
C8= I do not understand how my manager/team leader decides my
rating assessment.
3.61 1.118
C9= Managers/team leaders give the best rating/ assessments to
people they like.
3.39 1.127
C10= I fully understand how my objectives/performance standards
relate to the business needs of the organization.
3.98 .932
C11= I have received adequate training in performance
management
3.26 .960
C12= The system of performance management used here works
well and does not need to change
3.02 1.025
C13= Time spent on performance management is worthwhile 3.75 .968
C14= The information disclosed in performance reviews is used
sensitively and productively by the organization
3.69 .929
Employee
Involvement
Performance
Oriented Culture
Management
Commitment
Table 6: Correlations between Organisational Factors and Effectiveness of PMS
Effectiveness of Performance
Pearson Correlation .518 **
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100
Pearson Correlation .603 **
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100
Pearson Correlation .341 **
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 55