OUM BUSINESS SCHOOL

_______________________________________________________________________
BMBR5103
BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODS
ASSIGNMENT 2
JANUARY 2015
_________________________________________________________________________

The Influence of Leadership on the Relation between Level of Satisfaction in

Performance Appraisal and Reward (PAR) Process and Motivation: A Case of Royal
Malay Regiment
D. PROPOSED RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

i) Research Design
This research adopts the positivist research paradigm as pioneered by Comte (Babbie,
2010) using a hypothetico-deductive methodology. The hypothetico-deductive approach starts
with a very broad spectrum of information to a specific conclusion of the study. Deductive
reasoning is defined as a theory testing process, and seeks to test whether the theory applies to
specific instances (Hyde, 2000; and Spens & Kovacs, 2006). The hypothetico-deductive
method is the most suitable method because it does begin with the research problem which is
broad enough to address in a particular study. Consequently, the problem will be narrowed
down to a more specific research question or hypotheses that can be tested. The research
question or hypotheses is often stated in the context of some theory that has been advanced to
address the problem and predict what will happen in a specific circumstance. Finally, the
hypotheses are then tested empirically.
This research is therefore a quantitative and deductive research rather than qualitative
and interpretive. According to De Vaus (2002), quantitative research is an empirical research
approach in which hypothesis testing is used to discover relationships and facts that are
generalisable. A quantitative approach focuses on the study of samples and populations and
relies heavily on numerical data and statistical analysis (Neuman, 2000).
Significant numbers of previous studies (Akinbowale et al., 2013; Akuoko, 2012; Malik
& Aslam, 2013; Monis & Sreedhara, 2010; Rasheed et al., 2011; Reinke, 2003; and Samuel &
Geraldine, 2014) applied the quantitative approach. Therefore, there is already a significant
body of literature, known variables and existing theories to support the work undertaken in
this research. This study, rather than exploring in an interpretive way, sought to confirm,
support or challenge the findings of other scholars in a different research context. For that
reason, the quantitative paradigm is employed in this research.
The second reason is related to the advantages of applying the scientific method which
is the foundation for positivist research. This method allows a researcher to test their
hypotheses and rely on objective measures (data) to support their findings, avoiding problems
of speculation and bias that occur in interpretive research (Wicks & Freeman, 1998).
Similarly, Amaratunga et al. (2002) stressed that a quantitative approach entailed verification
of hypotheses providing strong reliability and validity.
Another advantage of using scientific method is that data could be replicated for
verification purposes in future studies as replication of results is vital for theory testing (Flew,

1
1979). Therefore, in this case, the positivist approach offers a new avenue of research in the
Malaysian Army context especially in getting better understanding on the influence of
leadership on the relation between level of satisfaction in PAR process and motivation.

ii) Research Setting and Instrument

A survey research method was adopted in this study to address the research objectives
and research questions as well as to test the hypotheses of the study variables. This method
was chosen due to the fact that this approach is the most common form of quantitative
research adopted by many previous researchers in the level of satisfaction and motivation.
Furthermore, Collis and Hussey (2003) pointed out that the questionnaire survey may produce
more honest responses compared to interviews as respondents are more likely to perceive
their responses as being anonymous.
The survey questionnaire instrument employed by the present study consists of four
parts, starting from Part A to Part D. Part A deals with the demographic factors whereby the
respondents were asked to state their age, ranks, salary, current post, department, and length
of service. Part B consists of 25 items regarding the level of satisfaction towards PAR
process. There are 5 sub-constructs dealing with the level of satisfaction which are
knowledge, attitude, communication, transparency, and rewards. Each construct consists of 5-
items and it were measured based on five-point Likert scale with the anchors ‘strongly
dissatisfied’ (1) and ‘strongly satisfied’ (5).
Further, Part C addresses leadership with 5-items each on relationship with leader,
perception towards leader, and perception towards leader’s rating decisions. The final section
of the questionnaire booklet is Part D, refers to 10-items asking on the motivation level of
each respondent. All items for Part C and D were measured on a five-point Likert scale with
the anchors ‘strongly disagreed’ (1) and ‘strongly agree’ (5). Appendix 1 shows the
questionnaire survey used in this study.
The items included in the questionnaire survey have been adopted from the previous
studies and modified to suit with the situation and PAR implementation in Army organisation.
The instruments come from a variety of sources. In order to ensure the reliability of the
constructs that are adopted from these various sources, the internal consistency reliability
value for each construct is observed based on the results of previous studies. The
measurement for each construct that is above the acceptable limit of internal consistency
value, i.e. above .60, is considered reliable and therefore usable for the study.

2
 iii) Data Collection Procedure
Self-administered questionnaire method was the main research tool employed to collect
data for this study. The main method of collection is through self-collected. Lovelock (1986)
provided a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of drop-off questionnaire delivery.
The drop-off method will yield to an increase in response rate and reduce the non-response
bias. Furthermore, the researcher will have a greater control and useful insight into the
respondent characteristic, the attitude towards survey and the reason for non-participation
(Lovelock, 1986).
The distributions of questionnaires are made during morning roll-call in the 1 st and 24th
RMR. A researcher will make a visit to each RMR for the questionnaires distribution. The
respondents are given the time frame to answer the questions and the questionnaires are then
collected back after the end of roll-call session on the same date. In order to obtain the
cooperation from the officers and infantry personnel, a letter of transmitter from the OUM
Business School is provided to each respondent as evidence of genuine research intention.

iv) Sample Selection Procedure

Infantry Corps is the biggest corps or group in the Malaysian Army. Since this study
investigates the level of satisfaction on PAR process among the infantry personnel, Royal
Malay Regiment (RMR) sampling frame is employed. The population for this study is officers
and infantry personnel in RMR focusing on Standard Infantry Battalion (SIB). The overall
strength of RMR battalion consists of 854 officers and 16,530 infantry personnel from 19
identified SIB in Malaysian Army.
The sample for this study is officers and infantry personnel from 1 st and 24th RMR
located in Kuala Lumpur and Rasah, Negeri Sembilan which directly involved with PAR
process. Both of the SIB units was chosen as the experimental battalion because easy for
accessible and for comparable purpose.
Since this study requires feedback from officers and infantry personnel of RMR as to
their level of satisfaction, therefore the unit of analysis is concentrates on the individual level.
There are supposed to have 33 officers and 597 infantry personnel in each battalion. However,
the registered officers and infantry personnel for 1 st RMR are 28 and 518, respectively. On the
other hand, the registered officers and infantry personnel for 24 th RMR are 26 and 510,
respectively. The targeted respondents for this study are approximately 30% of officers and
infantry personnel.

3
 This study looks at the data gathered from each individual and treats each owner’s
response as an individual data source. It is believed that leaders at respective level have the
implicit and explicit knowledge of the PAR process and play a role in disseminating the
information to their subordinates. Moreover, they are also engaged in PAR process as the
person assessing the performance of their subordinates. On the other hand, the infantry
personnel are believed to involve with PAR process as the person being assessed by their
leader.

v) Proposed Data Analyses Procedure and Data Analytical Methods

The data analysis will be performed in two stages. The first stage of the analysis
involves conducting an Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) to examine the data before any
specific statistical procedures are used to analyze them. EDA is conducted to detect error in
coding during the data entry by researcher, to screen out any unusual values, to identify
outliers and to assess the normality of distribution of the population from which the samples
are drawn. In addition, to ensure that findings were unbiased, statistical validity tests on
regression models were carried out. The tests were crucial to assure inferences were
empirically reliable.
During the first stage, the normality and multicollinearity of the data will be tested using
descriptive analysis. Descriptive statistics is used to scan the maximum and minimum values
to ensure they fall within the valid range. Measures such as mean and standard deviation are
used to show the pattern of data distribution. It is assumed that the data used in the regression
models are normally distributed with a mean of zero. The assessment of normality of the
metric variables involves empirical measures of a distribution’s shape characteristics
(skewness and kurtosis), histogram plot, and the normal probability plots (Hair et al., 2010).
Besides the normal data, another assumption in multiple regressions is that there should
not be a perfect linear relationship between two or more of the independent variables. Pallant
(2010) argues that if independent variables have a perfect linear relationship with each other
and thus, suggesting the possibility of multicollinearity. The common methods used by this
study to detect the presence of multicollinearity issue are by examining the correlation matrix
between independent variables, tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF).
The second stage involves using various statistical procedures to answer the research
questions. The inferential statistics that is used in the second stage of the analysis involves
bivariate correlation analysis and multivariate regression analysis. The bivariate correlation
analysis will use the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (Pearson ‘r’) to measure the relationship

4
between knowledge, attitude, communication, transparency, rewards, relationship with leader,
perception towards leader, and perception towards leader’s rating decisions (Pallant, 2010).
By statistically removing the influence of the confounding variable, clearer and more accurate
indication of the relationship between the two variables could be achieved. In addition, the
parametric Independent Samples t-tests and One-Way ANOVA will be used to identify
differences between groups of respondents.
The dependent, independent, and moderating variables will be analyzed by the
multivariate regression analysis. Multivariate design methods are chosen because this study
tests theories regarding the relationship between one dependent variable and several
independent variables. Multivariate design has an advantage of bringing more information to
bear on a specific outcome as allow one to take into account the continuing relationship
among several variables. This method is widely used in the field of social sciences research as
it offers a research design that can be scientifically tested, may easily be replicated in other
contexts and the results obtained can be generalised to other study with similar characteristics.
Standard multiple regression analysis will be conducted as this method is able to
explore the predictive ability of a set of independent variables on one continuous dependent
variable. Besides that, hierarchical regression analysis will be used to test the moderating
effect of leadership on the relationship between level of satisfaction and motivation.
Hierarchical regression is suitable for interaction terms in the regression equation as it is a
sequential process involving the entry of predictor variables into the analysis in steps. The
orders of variables entry into the analysis are made based on theory and past research.
In order to determine of moderation effect exists, the following procedures advised by
Baron and Kenny (1986) was undertaken. In the first step, the effect of independent variable
(the level of satisfaction) was estimated. In the second step, the moderator variable (the
leadership) was entered to gauge whether the moderator had a significant direct impact on the
dependent variable (motivation). In the final step, the interaction terms
(satisfaction*leadership) were entered to show the additional variance explained.
Hierarchical regression can be useful for evaluating the contributions of predictors
above and beyond previously entered predictors after controlling for other variables, as a
means of statistical control and for examining incremental validity (Pallant, 2010). This
“control” is achieved by calculating the exchange in the adjusted R 2 at each step of the
analysis, thus accounting for the increment in variance after each variable (or group of
variables) is entered into the regression model (Pedhazur, 1997). Further, the beta coefficient
(β) was used to evaluate the contribution of each of the predictor variables. In the case where

5
a significant moderating effect is present, a technique suggested by Aiken and West (1991) to
generate plots for each interaction was applied to show the effect of the moderator in the
relationship between the predictor and criterion variable.

E. REFERENCES
Abdul Kader Jalaini, S. F., Mohamad Yunus, N., Mat Ali, S. A. (2013), “Impact of
organisational rewards towards employee job performance,” International Conference
on Advance Research in Management, Economic, and Finance, Putrajaya, 107-112.
Adkins, H. (2006), “The laws of motivation,” Caterer and Hotelkeeper, 196(4429), 26-33.
Ahmad, R. and Bujang, S. (2013), “Issues and challenges in the practice of performance
appraisal activities in the 21st century,” International Journal of Education and Reserch,
1(4), 1-8.
Aiken, L. S., and S. G. West. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions, Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Akinbowale, M. A., Jinabhai, D. C., and Lourens, M. E. (2013), “The impact of performance
appraisal policy on employee performance – A case of Guaranty Trust Bank in Nigeria,”
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(14), 677-686.
Aktar, S., Sachu, M. K., and Ali, M. E. (2012), “The impact of rewards of employee
performance in commercial banks of Bangladesh: An empirical study,” Journal of
Business and Management, 6(2), 9-15.
Akuoko, K. O. (2012), “Performance appraisal as employee motivation mechanism in
selected financial institutions in Kumasi, Ashanti Region of Ghana,” International
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(6), 20-37.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sashar, M. and Newton, R. (2002), “Quantitative and qualitative
research in built environment: Application of "mixed" research approach,” Work
Study, 51(1), 17-31.
Awan, K. Z., Qureshi, I. and Arif, S. (2012), “The effective leadership style in NGOs: Impact
of servant leadership style on employees’ work performance and mediation effect of
work motivation,” International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences,
1(11), 43-56.
Babbie, E. R. (2010), Introduction to Social Research, Wadsworth Cengage learning.
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations,” Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.

6
Bascal R. (1999), Performance Management, McGraw-Hill. New York.
Beletskiy, A. (2011), Factors Affecting Employees’ Perceptions of the Performance Appraisal
Process, Unpublished Master Dissertation, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2003), Business Research, Basingstoke NH: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cronin, B. (1982), “Performance measurement and information management,” Aslib
Proceedings, 34(5), 212-227
De Vaus, D. A. (2002), Survey in Social Science Research. 5th Edition. Crow Nest, New
South Wales: Allen and Unwin.
Dechev, Z. (2010), Effective Performance Appraisal – A study into the Relation Between
Employer Satisfaction and Optimizing Business Results, Unpublished Master
Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
DeNisi, A. and Pritchard, R. (2006), “Performance appraisal, performance management and
improving individual performance: A motivational framework,” Management and
Organisation Review, 2(2) 253–277.
Erasmus, B., Swanepoel, B., Schenk, H., Westhuizen, E. J. and Wessels, J. S. (2005), South
African Human Resource Management for the Public Sector, Lansdowne: Juta.
Erdogan B. (2002), “Antecedents and consequences of justice perception in performance
appraisals,” Human Resource Management Review, 12(4), 555-578.
Fletcher, C. (2001), “Performance appraisal and management: The developing research
agenda,” Journal of Occupational and organisational Psychology, 74(4), 473-487.
Flew, A. (1979), A Dictionary of Philosophy, (2nd Edition) New York, NY: St. Martin's
Press.
Gabris, G. T. and Ihrke, D. M. (2000), “Improving employee acceptance toward performance
appraisal and merit pay systems: The role of leadership credibility,” Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 20(1), 41-53.
Ghazanfar, F., Chuanmin, S., Mahroof Khan, M. and Bashir, M. (2011), “A study of
relationship between satisfaction with compensation and work motivation,”
InternationalJournal of Business and Social Science, 2 (1), 120-131.
Harris, E. L. (2011), An Analysis of Sales People’s Perceptions of Performance Appraisal
Criteria at a Telecommunication Corporation, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of North Texas.
Hyde, K. F. (2000), “Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research,” Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 82-90.

7
Inderjit, S. T. S. (2000), Perception of the Performance Appraisal System amongst Officers in
Malaysian Army, Unpublished Master Dissertation, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia.
Iqbal, N., Ahmad, N., Haider, Z., Batool, Y. and Quratulain, (2013), “Impact of performance
appraisal on employee’s performance involving the moderating role of motivation,”
Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(1), 37-56.
Jose, A. (2011), Does Performance Appraisal Motivate Employees at a Workplace,
Unpublished Master Dissertation, National College of Ireland.
Khan, K. U. & Farooq, S.U. (2010), “The relationship between reward and employee
motivation in commercial Banks of Pakistan,” Research Journal of International
Studies, 14(1).
Lawler, E. E. (2003), Treat People Right, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. McGraw-Hill
Irwin.
Lee, M. and Shin, W. (2000), “Is there any positive effect on offering no performance
appraisal feedback?” Journal of Human Values, 6(15), 15-27.
Lewicki, R. J. and Bunker, B. B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships,” In Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. (Eds.), Trust in Organisations:
Frontiers of Theory and Research (114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lovelock, C. H. (1986), “Teaching with cases,” New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 1986(30), 25-35.
Malhotra, N., Budhwar, P. and Prowse, P. (2007), “Linking rewards to commitment: An
empirical investigation of four UK call centres,” International Journal ofHuman
Resource Management, 2095-2127.
Malik M. S., Mariam, M. and Raza, M. S. (2011), “Association between reward and
employee motivation: A case study banking sector of Pakistan,” European Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(1) (Special Issue), 166-178.
Malik, M. S. and Aslam, S. (2013), “Performance appraisal and employee’s motivation: A
comparative analysis of telekom industry of Pakistan,” Pakistan Journal of Social
Science, 33(1), 179-189.
Mani, B. G. (2002), “Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case
study,” Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 141-159.
Monis, H. and Sreedhara, T. N. (2010), "Correlates of employee satisfaction with
performance appraisal system in foreign MNC BPOs operating in India,” Annals of the
University of Petrosani, Economics, 10(4), 215-224.

8
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative approaches.
4th Edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ojokuku, R. M. (2013), “Effect of performance appraisal system on motivation and
performance of academics in Nigerian public universities,” Australian Journal of
Business and Management Research, 3(3) 20-28.
Okojie (2009), “Reward policy and employee motivation in the National Library of Nigeria,”
Journal of Information Studies, 9(10).
Pallant, J. (2010), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS,
McGraw-Hill International.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997), Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace (3rd Edition).
Rasheed, M. I., Aslam, H. D., Yousaf, S. and Noor, A. (2011), “A critical analysis of
performance appraisal system for teachers in public sector universities of Pakistan: A
case study of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur (IUB),” Journal of Business
Management, 5(9), 3735-3744, doi: 10.5897/JBM10.1157
Reinke, S. J. (2003), “Does the form really matter?: Leadership, trust, and acceptance of the
performance appraisal process,” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(23), 23-
37.
Saeed, R., Lodhi, R. N., Naeem, A., … and Ahmed, M. (2013), “Impact of performance
appraisals and motivation on employee’s outputs in banking sector of Pakistan,” World
Applied Sciences Journal, 26(3), 415-421
Samuel, O. A. and Geraldine, G. A. (2014), “Effect of performance appraisal system on
library staff performance in Ghanaian academic libraries,” Journal of Information
Engineering and Applications, 4(7), 1-14.
Selvarajan, T. T. and Cloninger, P. A. (2011), “Can performance appraisals motivate
employees to improve performance? A Mexican study,” The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 1-22.
Seong, S. O. and Lewis, G. B. (2009), “Can performance appraisal systems inspire
intrinsically motivated employees?” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(2),
158-167.
Shafie, H. (1996), “Malaysia’s experience in implementing the new performance appraisal
system,” Public Administration and Development, 16, 341-352.

9
Spens, K. M. and Kovács, G. (2006), “A content analysis of research approaches in logistics
research,” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 36(5), 374-390.
Sterlington, K. H. (2009), Employee Performance Appraisal, Reward and Recognition: A
Case Study of Barclays Bank of Ghana Limited, Unpublished Master Dissertation,
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.
Tyson, S. and York, A. (2000). Essentials of Human Resources Management, Oxford: Jordan
Hill (4th Edition).
Ungku Zahar, U. A. and Din, F. (2005), Current Appraisal System in the Army effectiveness
and its Relevancy an Analysis, Unpublished Master Dissertation, Universiti Malaya,
Malaysia.
Vroom, V. H. (1964), Work and Motivation, New York: John Wiley.
Walsh, M. B. (2003), Perceived Fairness of and Satisfaction with Employee Performance
Appraisal, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Louisiana State University.
Wicks, A. C. and Freeman, R. E. (1998), “Organisation studies and the new pragmatism:
Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics,” Organisation Science 9(2), 123-
140.
Wright, B. E. (2007), “Public service and motivation: Does mission matter?” Public
Administration Review, (January), 54-64.
Yongjun, Z. (2013), “A study on the interactive relationship between performance appraisal,
trust, and management tactics,” International Conference on Science and Social
Research, 568-571.

10
APPENDIX: Questionnaire Survey

OUM BUSINESS SCHOOL

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

A RESEARCH ON THE INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP ON THE RELATION

BETWEEN LEVEL OF SATISFACTION IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND
REWARD (PAR) PROCESS AND MOTIVATION: A CASE OF ROYAL MALAY
REGIMENT

Dear Participants,
I am Mejar Maz Ardi Bin Hj. Nohuddin, a Master of Management student at OUM Business
School. I am conducting a research titled “The Influence of Leadership on the Relation
between Level of Satisfaction in Performance Appraisal and Reward (PAR) Process and
Motivation: A Case of Royal Malay Regiment”. I would like to seek your cooperation in
filling this questionnaire as to get better understanding on the employee behavior about their
evaluation. All participation in this study are assured that all information obtained for this
purpose will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used for academic purpose.

If you have any further questions or concerns about your participation in this study, you may
contact me at the contact below. A written summary of the findings will be available upon
request. Your cooperation in this survey will be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Mejar Maz Ardi Bin Hj. Nohuddin
Researcher
Master of Management
OUM Business School
Kuala Lumpur Learning Centre
HP: 019-261 7174
Email: [email protected]

11
 PART A
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

Instruction: Please √ the most appropriate answer relevant to your personal information.

a) Ranking b) Salary
1. Officer 1. RM1,500 and below
2. PTT Kanan 2. RM1,500 to RM2,500
3. Corporal and below 3. RM2,500 and above

c) Age Group d) Length of Service

1. 25 years and below 1. Less than 5 years
2. 26 – 30 years 2. 6 – 10 years
3. 31 – 35 years 3. 11 – 15 years
4. 36 – 40 years 4. 16 – 21 years
5. 41 – 45 years 5. 22 – 25 years
6. 46 years and above 6. More than 25 years

e) Academic Qualification f) Department

1. SRP 1. Battalion
2. SPM 2. Company
3. STPM 3. Platoon
4. Diploma 4. Section
5. Degree and above 5. Department

g) Do you hold a position as a leader in your department / section / platoon / Yes

company / battalion? No

h) Have you experienced as a rater for performance appraisal report on Yes

human resources under the administration? No

12
 PART B
PERCEPTION TOWARDS PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Instruction: Please circle the most relevant answer according to the answer scale below.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Dissatisfied Satisfied

1. Knowledge Scale
Performance appraisal system is essential for an
B1 1 2 3 4 5
effective organisation.
I clearly understand the method of performance
B2 1 2 3 4 5
appraisal.
I clearly understand the purpose of performance
B3 1 2 3 4 5
appraisal.
I understand the measures used to evaluate my
B4 1 2 3 4 5
performance.
Job related knowledge and personal value are part of the
B5 1 2 3 4 5
performance appraisal criteria

2. Attitude Scale
Performance appraisal gives me the awareness about my
B6 1 2 3 4 5
real performance.
Performance appraisal is essential to all officers and
B7 1 2 3 4 5
soldiers.
B8 Performance appraisal has no effect to my performance. 1 2 3 4 5
Performance appraisal helps me to plan the progress of
B9 1 2 3 4 5
my performance.
I need to give the cooperation in the performance
B10 1 2 3 4 5
appraisal process.

3. Communication Scale
All personnel been exposed about performance appraisal
B11 1 2 3 4 5
procedure.
My raters always give me feedback about my
B12 1 2 3 4 5
performance.
My rater lets me know how I can improve my
B13 1 2 3 4 5
performance
My rater reviews my performance expectations from the
B14 1 2 3 4 5
performance planning session at least every three month.
An appeal process is available when there is a perceived
B15 1 2 3 4 5
disagreement on the accuracy of the appraisal.

4. Transparency Scale
13
B16 Performance appraisal in my unit is transparent. 1 2 3 4 5
Performance appraisal reflects objectively my
B17 1 2 3 4 5
performance.
B18 I know who my rater is. 1 2 3 4 5
All individual has been informed about performance
B19 1 2 3 4 5
rating.
My performance rating can be changed if I can show
B20 1 2 3 4 5
that it is incorrect or unfair.

5. Reward Scale
Rewards and recognition from performance appraisal
B21 1 2 3 4 5
been implemented in my organisation.
Performance appraisal in my organisation is linked
B22 1 2 3 4 5
with promotion and payment of bonus.
My unit recognizes work achievement based on
B23 1 2 3 4 5
performance appraisal.
I received reward and recognition based on my job
B24 1 2 3 4 5
performance.
Rewards and recognition from performance appraisal
B25 1 2 3 4 5
is motivating factor to me.

14
 PART C
PERCEPTION TOWARDS LEADERSHIP

Instruction: Please circle the most relevant answer according to the answer scale below.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree

6. Relationship with Leaders Scale

My leader gave good support in evaluating the
C1 1 2 3 4 5
performance appraisal.
C2 My leader gave advice as performance raters. 1 2 3 4 5

C3 Overall, my leader was a good performance rater. 1 2 3 4 5

My leader implementing performance appraisal process
C4 1 2 3 4 5
according to the procedure.
I am satisfied with the assessment methods used by the
C5 1 2 3 4 5
leader to evaluate performance.

7. Reactions Towards Clarifying Expectations Scale

My leader gives me clear and real example to justify his
C6 1 2 3 4 5
rating of my work.
My leader helps me to understand the process used to
C7 1 2 3 4 5
evaluate and rate my performance.
My leader lets me know how I can improve my
C8 1 2 3 4 5
performance
My leader gave me the opportunity to ask questions and
C9 1 2 3 4 5
discuss about the targeted performance.
My rater explains to me what he expects of my
C10 1 2 3 4 5
performance

8. Reactions Towards Leader’s Rating Decisions Scale

My leader takes the performance appraisal process
C11 1 2 3 4 5
seriously.
The performance appraisal rating result help me to
C12 1 2 3 4 5
revise my work performance.
My leader gave me evaluation based on my work
C13 1 2 3 4 5
performance
My leader lets me ask him questions about my
C14 1 2 3 4 5
performance rating.
I agree with the results of the performance evaluation
C15 1 2 3 4 5
made by my leader.

PART D

15
 MOTIVATION STATEMENT

Instruction: Please circle the most relevant answer according to the answer scale below.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree

9. Motivation statement Scale

Performance appraisal process in my unit foster good
D1 1 2 3 4 5
work performance.
Transparent performance appraisal processes gave me
D2 1 2 3 4 5
motivation and affect my work achievement.
Commensurate performance appraisal based on my
D3 1 2 3 4 5
performance, increase motivation.
D4 Performance-based incentive schemes motivate me. 1 2 3 4 5
Leaders support in the performance evaluation process
D5 1 2 3 4 5
is very important to increase the motivation.
Clear and accurate performance appraisal are important
D6 1 2 3 4 5
to improving employee motivation.
Performance evaluation process in my unit been
D7 1 2 3 4 5
implemented effectively and efficiently.
My last performance rating makes me to improve my
D8 1 2 3 4 5
performance.
I can identify my weaknesses during the performance
D9 1 2 3 4 5
evaluation process and correct it.
I do believe that I will get better results of the
D10 1 2 3 4 5
performance appraisal in the coming year.

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

16