International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 491

ISSN 2250-3153

The Effects of Performance Management System on

Employee Performance.: A Study
Md. Aktaruzzaman Santi *, Abdur Rahim **
* Department of Management Studies, University of Barishal
** Department of Management Studies, University of Barishal

DOI: 10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661

Abstract- The purpose of the study was to determine the influence of performance management (PM) on employee productivity in the
Consumer Food Products Ltd. More specifically, the study sought to determine the extent to which performance appraisal, explore the
extent to which training and development and determine the extent to which rewarding systems and contrast the extent to which feedback
and coaching influence on employee productivity. In order to test four (04) hypothesis and achieve the objectives of this research
structured questionnaire had been applied to gather primary data for analysis and interpretation. However, this questionnaire is composed
of 30 questions (Likert Scale question) that personate all the variables of this paper. However, a random sample (n=61) was selected
with 75 questionnaires that were distributed and back to ensure high response from staffs. The analysis of data is divided into three main
section; Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard deviation, Standard error mean,); Inferential Statistics (Reliability test,); Structural Model
(t-value, p-value, Coefficient value) to find the linkage between PMS practice and selected outcomes by using SPSS (Statistical Package
for Social Science)-16. Tables were used to present the findings. The research concludes the result of the data analysis reveal that PMS
(F&C: β= .280, t= 2.237, p= .029. T&D: β= .522, t= 4.696, p= .000. PA: β= .230, t=1.814, p= .075. RS: β= 068, t=.525, p=.601) have a
significant influence on its selected outcomes. As a result, it is recommended by the researcher that study also brought about the emphasis
on the presence and appearance of PMS internal experts within the organizations which helps to improve the implementation of effective
PMS practices. The study concluded that there are no links between performance appraisal and employee performance as indicated.

Index Terms- Employee performance management, Performance evaluation, Performance planning, Employee performance
management satisfaction, Job satisfaction Strain, Policing

I. INTRODUCTION
Global businesses are operating in the midst of challenging times. An organization today, in order to be profitable and ahead of its peers,
needs to compete in more markets, operate across more platforms and manage more stakeholders than ever before (Beckons). One of
the important elements in the organizational orderliness of human resource management is performance management (Zulystiawati,
Vol.3, No.4, 2014). Even the term “performance management” is much more recent, and so there is much less history to describe (DeNisi
& Murphy, 2017,). This research has been focused on improving the performance of individuals, however, and the ultimate goal of
performance management systems is to improve firm-level performance. Possible Outcomes from Effective Performance Management:
clarifying job responsibilities and expectations, enhancing individual and group productivity, developing employee capabilities to their
fullest extent through effective feedback and coaching, driving behavior to align with the organization’s core values, goals and strategy
(Pulakos E. D). Performance management is regarded as the ―Achilles Heel of human capital management and it is the most difficult
system to implement in organization (Pulakos E. D., 2009, p. 3). It should thus be managers’ top priority (Almothaseb, Almahameed,
& Tobeery, June 2017). Organizations need to be aware of face more realistically towards keeping their human resources up-to-date. In
so doing, managers need to pay special attention to all the core functions of human resource management (Nassazi, 2013), and
performance management is one of them.

II. Literature Review

The idea of Performance Management System (PMS) constitutes one of the important and positive developments that have gained
momentum in the domain of Human Resource Management (HRM) recently (Armstrong, 1994, P.01). Performance management (PM)
includes activities which ensure that goals are consistently being met in an effective and efficient manner. Performance management
potentially makes the most significant contribution to individual and organizational learning and helps to raise organizational efficiency
and promote growth (Adhikari, 2010). Performance management has to be the core of all organizations since it gives strategic direction
and how resources are going to be distributed towards the achievement of set goals and objectives. Performance management is a tool
meant to improve performance and productivity and it is yet to be fully institutionalized as the way of doing business. Effective
performance management in the public service requires specific tools and deliberate measures (Olufemi). The aim of performance
management is to improve service delivery through effective and efficient application of resources (Zvavahera). At the very outset, it is
This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 492
ISSN 2250-3153
worthwhile to point out that there is nothing new in the concept of PMS as its origin can be traced back as early as 221-265 AD (Assish,
March 2018). The essence of management as a set of complex procedures and activities is influencing on a particular system in order to
change the system towards achieving defined development objectives (Tomić, Tadić, & Sedlak, November 2016.). Performance
measurement system, as stated by Nelly et al. (2003), relates to the use of multidimensional set of indicators (financial, non-financial,
internal, and external). The role of performance measurement system as a subsystem is identified as part of the strategic performance
management, whereby the performance management system is responsible for the implementation process (Rastislav & Petra,
September 2016).

III. DATA ANALYSIS

1. Hypotheses Development and Data Analysis:

Theoretical Framework:
The theoretical framework is the “blueprint” for the entire dissertation inquiry. It serves as the guide on which to build and support your
study, and also provides the structure to define how you will philosophically, epistemologically, methodologically, and analytically
approach the dissertation as a whole. defined a theoretical framework as “a structure that guides research by relying on a formal
theory…constructed by using an established, coherent explanation of certain phenomena and relationships”. Thus, the theoretical
framework consists of the selected theory (or theories) that undergird your thinking with regards to how you understand and plan to
research your topic, as well as the concepts and definitions from that theory that are relevant to your topic. Criteria for applying or
developing theories to the dissertation that must be appropriate, logically interpreted, well understood, and align with the question at
hand.

 Training & Development:

Accordingly, training refers to the methods used to give new or present employees the skills that they need to perform their jobs.
Additionally, the focus of training is performance improvement, which are directed towards maintaining and improving current job
performance (Desseler, 2007, p. 270).

THE FIVE STEPS OF TRAINING

Gary Dessler opine that training consists of the five steps:

a. Training Needs Analysis (TNA): Identifies the specific job performance skills needed, assesses the prospective trainees’
skills, and develops specific measurable knowledge and performance objectives based on any deficiencies.
b. Training Instructional Design (TID) is to decide, compile and produce training program content, including workbooks,
exercises, and activities and some techniques like computer and on the job training technique.
c. Training Validation: The bugs are worked out of the training program by presenting it to a small representative audience.
d. Implementation: Actually, training the targeted employee group.
e. Evaluation: Management assess the program’s success or failures.

MEASURING TRAINING EFFECTS

The effects of training can be measured through the following four basic categories of outcome.

 Reaction
 Learning
 Behavior
 Results

 Coaching & Feedback:

Coaching, in its simplest form, means to train, tutor or give instruction. It is an excellent skill that can be used to enhance growth
and performance, as well as promote individual responsibility and accountability. Performance coaching is an ongoing process
which helps build and maintain effective employee and supervisory relationships. Performance coaching can help identify an
employee's growth, as well as help plan and develop new skills. Feedback is the primary tool used to provide employees with
information and guidance. Feedback consists of two-way communication.

Employee feedback provides managers with clues regarding how they are hindering or aiding their subordinates' work
performance.
This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 493
ISSN 2250-3153
Supervisory feedback should inform, enlighten, and suggest improvements to employees regarding their performance. Supervisors
should describe specific results they have observed as close to the event as possible so ideas stay fresh and any needed adjustments
can be made in a timely manner. Successful supervisors develop a routine that includes frequent, in-depth discussions about
performance with employees.

360 Degree Feedback In recent years, there has been a growing interest in multi-rater or 360-degree feedback, in response to an
increasing need for greater employee commitment and empowerment. In essence, 360-degree feedback enables all the stakeholders
in a person's performance to comment and give feedback (Ward, 1995). Stakeholders may include peers, subordinates, internal/
external customers and managers (Kriemadis, Andreas, & Κριεμάδης, 2018).

EXISTING APPROACHES

Eclectic Interventions Eclectic coaching interventions are activities that derive from no particular theoretical per spectate but have
considerable face validity nonetheless, in that a lay person would be likely to assume that they would help a team perform well.
Eclectic models are found mainly in the practitioner literature as codifications of the les sons learned by management consultants
whose practice includes team facilitation.

Process Consultation The process consultation approach developed by Schein (1969, 1988) posits that competent interpersonal
relations are essential for effective task performance and that group members themselves must be intimately involved in analyzing
and improving those relationships. The consultant engages team members in analyzing group processes on two levels
simultaneously: (1) the substantive level- To analyze how human processes are affecting work on a specific organizational problem?
And (2) the internal level-to better understand the team's own interaction processes and the ways that team processes foster or
impede effective group functioning.

Behavioral Models Two distinct models of team coaching are based on theories of individual behavior: (1) the application of
Argyris's (1982, 1993) theory of intervention to team-focused coaching by Schwarz (1994) and (2) applications of parent
conditioning to the modification of team behavior, notably those of Komaki (1986, 1998) and her col leagues (Richard & Ruth,
2005).

 Performance Appraisal

A performance appraisal is a regular review of an employee's job performance and overall contribution to a company. Also known
as an "annual review," "performance review or evaluation," or "employee appraisal," a performance appraisal evaluates an
employee’s skills, achievements and growth, or lack thereof. Companies use performance appraisals to give employees big-picture
feedback on their work and to justify pay increases and bonuses, as well as termination decisions.

Cognitive Placement for Performance Appraisal

The method of cognitive placement determines the performance groups among employees. HR managers appoint the performance
grade of employees into one group. Top performers and bad performers are interested to HR managers, because top performers
make up the “talent management” group and bad performers make up the “performance management” group. Talent performers
might be candidates for management positions, because they have the best individual performance, while bad performers may need
performance management process to upgrade their knowledge and individual performance. So, we make the scale of cognitive
placements follows (see Figure).

100 90 70 50 30 10 0 (Grades)

10% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10%

Top individual performance has the performance grade of 90-100, while bad performance has the lowest grade of 10. In addition,
the two groups might be the target group of HR managers and HR departments. HR manager replaces the top 10% of employees
into top performers and replaces the lowest 10% of employees into bad performer group.

 Rewarding System:

Procedures, rules, and standards associated with allocation of benefits and compensation to employees. The reward system is a
group of neural structures responsible for incentive salience (i.e., motivation and "wanting", desire, or craving for a reward),
associative learning (primarily positive reinforcement and classical conditioning), and positively-valanced emotions, particularly
ones which involve pleasure as a core component (e.g., joy, euphoria and ecstasy).
This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 494
ISSN 2250-3153

1.2 Conceptual Framework:

For SPSSS analysis, one dependent variable and four independent variables are chosen. Independent variables are training and
development (T&D), on-going feedback and coaching, performance appraisal, rewarding systems. And level of satisfaction of PMS
practices are considered the dependent variable.

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Training and Development

H1
(T&D)

On-going Feedback and H2

Coaching
Employee
H3 Performance
Performance Appraisal

H4
Rewarding Systems

Figure 1:Conceptual Framework

2. Data Analysis:

2.1 Analytical Model:

A mathematical model is developed for my research. I have to use multiple regression equation to identify as well as analyze the
dependent and independent variables. There are total ten variables consist of nine independent variables and a dependent variable. The
mathematical model is bellow-

Ý= α+ ß1x+ ß2x+ ß3x+ ß4x + e

Here,
Ý = Dependent variable, which is employee satisfaction level of PMS of the company.
ß1x = Training & Development (Independent variable)
ß2x = Feedback & Coaching (Independent variable)
ß3x = Performance Appraisal (Independent variable)
ß4x =Rewarding System (Independent variable)
e = Error

2.2 Research Question Development:

RQ1: Does Training & Development significantly influence employee satisfaction?
RQ2: Does Feedback & Coaching significantly influence employee performance?
RQ3: Does Performance Appraisal significantly influence the employee satisfaction?

RQ4: Does Rewarding System significantly influence the employee satisfaction?

3. Reliability Analysis of Factors

Table 1: Reliability Analysis of Factors

Groups Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha

Dependent Variable:
Employee Performance 6 .860
Independent Variables:

This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 495
ISSN 2250-3153
Training & Development 7 .774
Feedback & Coaching 6 .873
Performance Appraisal 5 .848
Rewarding System 6 .809
In this report, reliability is measured by using Cronbach’s Alpha. Cronbach’s Alpha measures internal consistency or how the items are
closely related as a group. Cronbach’s Alpha of .07 and above is acceptable where scale between 0 (no internal reliability) and 1 (greatest
internal reliability). Cronbach’s Alpha for dependent variable has shown in the table which is greater than benchmark .07, which
indicates good and acceptable in the rules of thumb, therefore the questionnaire formed is reliable.

4. Descriptive Statistics Analysis:

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Feedback & Coaching 61 2.3716 .10177 .79489
Performance Appraisal 61 2.4656 .10462 .81709
Rewarding System 61 2.2732 .08237 .64337
Training & Development 61 2.1569 .07299 .57006
The table has shown the statistical description of PMS dimensions and Employee Performance. From the table it has been found that
employees of the organization perceived that Performance Appraisal (with highest mean scores i.e. M = 2.4656 SD = .81709) to be the
most dominant practices of PMS and evident to a considerable extent, followed by Feedback & Coaching (M = 2.3716 SD = .79489),
Rewarding System (M = 2.2732 SD = .64337), Training & Development ( M = 2.1569 SD = .57006).

Correlation Analysis:

Table 3: Correlation Alalysis

Correlations
Employee Training & Feedback Performance Rewarding
Performance Development & Appraisal System
Coaching
Employee Pearson 1
Performance Correlation
Training & Pearson .522** 1
Development Correlation
Feedback & Pearson .280* .569** 1
Coaching Correlation
Performance Pearson .230 .348** .648** 1
Appraisal Correlation
Rewarding System Pearson .068 .080 .248 .446** 1
Correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The table of correlation shows that Training & Development (r=0.522) is highly correlated with employee performance. And Feedback
& Coaching (r=0.280) is moderately correlated with employee performance. Performance Appraisal (r=0.230) and Rewarding System
(r=0.068) have negatively correlated with employee performance.

5. Hypotheses Development:
According to the factors I got from the respondents I have develop four hypotheses. Those are given below-
H1: If effective feedback and coaching is given to employees on their progress towards their goals, employee performance will improve.
People need to know in a timely manner how they're doing, what's working, and what's not. Feedback & Coaching significantly influence
employee job satisfaction.

This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 496
ISSN 2250-3153
H2: Training & Development is the most significant factor required to obtain maximum output from the human resources. It can be used
to improve or develop job related performance requirements of the employees. Training & Development significantly influence
employee satisfaction.
H3: Performance Appraisal acts as an important part of measuring employee performance. It evaluates the effectiveness of the whole
process and its contribution to overall organizational performance to allow changes and improvements to be made. It significantly
influences employee satisfaction.
H4: If the employees are paid a good reward, their productivity will increase. The effectiveness of pay-for performance has a direct
influence on high levels of productivity and desirable work attitudes. Rewarding Systems significantly influence employee satisfaction.

Testing Hypotheses:

5.1 Hypothesis Testing on Independent Variable- Feedback & Coaching

H0: Feedback & Coaching doesn’t significantly influence employee job satisfaction.

H1: Feedback & Coaching significantly influences employee job satisfaction.

Table 4: Model Summary of Feedback & Coaching

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .280a .078 .063 .63973
a. Predictors: (Constant), Feedback & Coaching
The model summary table of regression analysis shows the strength of regression is commendably significant as supported by the
coefficient of the multiple R value= .280 or 28%. Additionally, the adjusted R-square value of .063 or 6.3% withholds the variables
mentioned, while other 72% is possibly concerned with associated with variables not similar to chapter involved.

Table 5: Coefficient of Feedback & Coaching

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.446 .260 5.569 .000
Feedback & Coaching .232 .104 .280 2.237 .029
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Moreover, the p-values observed above (Sig = .000 and .029) authenticates the degree of significance between the tested variables at a
commendable 1% level, which is also reaffirmed by the t-stat (Feedback & Coaching =2.237) satisfying t> (-/+) 2. On a parallel note,
the coefficient (B =.280) suggests that there is a strong positive correlation between Legal dimension of Coaching & Feedback and
employee performance.

Table 6: ANOVA of Feedback & Coaching

ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 2.048 1 2.048 5.005 .029a

Residual 24.146 59 .409
Total 26.194 60
a. Predictors: (Constant), Feedback & Coaching
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
From the above table reveals that the degree of freedom associates with SSR will always be 1 for the sample linear regression model.
The degree of freedom associate with SSR is = n-1=61-1=60.

With regard to the ANOVA table, it is identified that the value of F-stat is 5.972 and is significant as the level of significance .029 is
less than 5% (p<0.05).

This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 497
ISSN 2250-3153

This indicates that the overall model was reasonable fit and there was a statistically significant association between employee Coaching
& feedback and employee performance. So H1 is accepted and H0 is rejected. Additionally, this also indicated that the hypothesis of
this study is accepted i.e., coaching & feedback has a positive relationship with employee performance.

5.2 Hypothesis Testing on Independent Variable- Training & Development

H0: Training & Development doesn’t significantly influence employee job satisfaction.

H1: Training & Development significantly influences employee job satisfaction.

Table 7: Model Summary of Training & Development

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .522a .272 .260 .56848
a. Predictors: (Constant), Training & Development
The model summary table of regression analysis shows the strength of regression is commendably significant as supported by the
coefficient of the multiple R value= .522 or 52.2%. Additionally, the adjusted R-square value of .260 or 2.6% withholds the variables
mentioned, while other 47.8% is possibly concerned with associated with variables not similar to chapter involved.

Table 8 : Coefficient of Training & Development

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .693 .287 2.415 .019
Training & Development .605 .129 .522 4.696 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Moreover, the p-values observed above (Sig = .019 and .000) authenticates the degree of significance between the tested variables at a
commendable 1% level, which is also reaffirmed by the t-stat (Training & Development =4.696) satisfying t> (-/+) 2. On a parallel note,
the coefficient (B =.522) suggests that there is a strong positive correlation between Legal dimension of Training & Development and
employee performance.

Table 9: ANOVA of Training & Development

ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 7.127 1 7.127 22.052 .000a
Residual 19.067 59 .323
Total 26.194 60
a. Predictors: (Constant), Training & Development
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
From the above table reveals that the degree of freedom associates with SSR will always be 1 for the sample linear regression model.
The degree of freedom associate with SSR is = n-1=61-1=60.

With regard to the ANOVA table, it is identified that the value of F-stat is 22.052 and is significant as the level of significance .000 is
less than 5% (p<0.05).

This indicates that the overall model was reasonable fit and there was a statistically significant association between employee Training
& Development and employee performance. So H1 is accepted and H0 is rejected. Additionally, this also indicated that the hypothesis
of this study is accepted i.e., Training & Development has a positive relationship with employee performance.

This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 498
ISSN 2250-3153

5.3. Hypothesis Testing on Independent Variable- Performance Appraisal

H0: Performance Appraisal doesn’t significantly influence employee job satisfaction.

H1: Performance Appraisal significantly influences employee job satisfaction.

Table 10: Model Summary of Performance Appraisal

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .230a .053 .037 .64847
a. Predictors: (Constant), Performance Appraisal
The model summary table of regression analysis shows the strength of regression is commendably significant as supported by the
coefficient of the multiple R value= .230 or 23.0%. Additionally, the adjusted R-square value of .037 or 3.7% withholds the variables
mentioned, while other 77% is possibly concerned with associated with variables not similar to chapter involved.

Table 11: Coefficient of Performance Appraisal

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.539 .266 5.788 .000
Performance Appraisal .186 .102 .230 1.814 .075
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Moreover, the p-values observed above (Sig = .000 and .075) authenticates the degree of significance between the tested variables at a
commendable 1% level, which is also reaffirmed by the t-stat (Performance Appraisal =1.814) not satisfying t> (-/+) 2. On a parallel
note, the coefficient (B =.230) suggests that there is a negative correlation between Legal dimension of Performance Appraisal and
employee performance.

Table 12: ANOVA of Performance Appraisal

ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.383 1 1.383 3.290 .075a
Residual 24.811 59 .421
Total 26.194 60
a. Predictors: (Constant), Performance Appraisal
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
From the above table reveals that the degree of freedom associates with SSR will always be 1 for the sample linear regression model.
The degree of freedom associate with SSR is = n-1=61-1=60.

With regard to the ANOVA table, it is identified that the value of F-stat is 3.290 and is significant as the level of significance .075 is
more than 5% (p>0.05).

This indicates that the overall model was reasonable fit and there was a statistically no significant association between employee
Performance Appraisal and employee performance. So H1 is rejected and H0 is accepted. Additionally, this also indicated that the
hypothesis of this study is accepted i.e., Performance Appraisal has a negative relationship with employee performance.

5.4. Hypothesis Testing on Independent Variable- Rewarding System

H0: Rewarding System doesn’t significantly influence employee job satisfaction.

H1: Rewarding System significantly influences employee job satisfaction.

Table 13: Model Summary of Rewarding System

This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 499
ISSN 2250-3153
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .068a .005 -.012 .66476
a. Predictors: (Constant), Rewarding System
The model summary table of regression analysis shows the strength of regression is commendably significant as supported by the
coefficient of the multiple R value= .068 or 6.8.0%. Additionally, the adjusted R-square value of -.012 or .1.2% withholds the variables
mentioned, while other 93.2% is possibly concerned with associated with variables not similar to chapter involved.

Table 14: Coefficient of Rewarding System

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.838 .315 5.836 .000
Rewarding System .070 .133 .068 .525 .601
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Moreover, the p-values observed above (Sig = .000 and .601) authenticates the degree of significance between the tested variables at a
commendable 1% level, which is also reaffirmed by the t-stat (Rewarding System =.525) not satisfying t> (-/+) 2. On a parallel note,
the coefficient (B =.068) suggests that there is a negative correlation between Legal dimension of Rewarding System and employee
performance.

Table 15: ANOVA of Rewarding System

ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .122 1 .122 .276 .601a
Residual 26.072 59 .442
Total 26.194 60
a. Predictors: (Constant), Rewarding System
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
From the above table reveals that the degree of freedom associates with SSR will always be 1 for the sample linear regression model.
The degree of freedom associate with SSR is = n-1=61-1=60.

With regard to the ANOVA table, it is identified that the value of F-stat is .270 and is significant as the level of significance .601 is less
than 5% (p>0.05).

This indicates that the overall model was reasonable fit and there was a statistically no significant association between employee
Rewarding System and employee performance. So H1 is rejected and H0 is accepted. Additionally, this also indicated that the
hypothesis of this study is accepted i.e., Rewarding System has a negative relationship with employee performance.

6. Output of Hypotheses

Table 16: Output of Hypotheses

Hypothesis Output Results

H1: Feedback & Coaching Output (1) As the P value is less than 0.05 (in table 12), so I accept the
significantly influences employee alternative hypotheses along with concluding that there is significant Accepted
job satisfaction. association between Feedback & Coaching and Employee Performance.
H2: Training & Development Output (2) As the P value is less than 0.05 (in table 15), so I accept the
significantly influence employee alternative hypotheses along with concluding that there is a significant Accepted
satisfaction. relation between Training & Development and Employee Performance.

This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 500
ISSN 2250-3153
H3: Performance Appraisal Output (3) As the P value is greater than 0.05 (in table 18), so I reject the
significantly influence employee alternative hypotheses along with concluding that there is no significant Rejected
satisfaction. relation between Performance Appraisal and Employee Performance.
H4: Rewarding Systems Output (4) As the P value is greater than 0.05 (in table 21), so I reject the
significantly influences employee alternative hypotheses along with concluding that there is no significant Rejected
satisfaction. relation between Rewarding Systems and Employee Performance.

IV. FINDINGS
In this section, a list of findings has been shown according to analysis and objectives of the report.

Feedback & Coaching gives recognition for good performance hence improved employee productivity. The study finds out that
Feedback & Coaching strongly suggests changes to improve departmental services and outcomes hence create room for improvement.
Actual performance could therefore be compared to the desired performance; therefore, the outcome is evaluated and a development
plan is set based on the weakness.

From the analysis we also find that there is a strong relationship between training & development and employee performance. The
dimension of training a& development of PMS has significantly impact on employee performance. The data also establishes that training
and development (T&D) policy ensures employees are exposed to relevant skills to improve productivity. From the analysis it is clear
that Training and development (T&D) opportunities provided encourage staff to be creative hence improved productivity.

The study finds out that there are no links between performance appraisal and employee performance as indicated. Performance appraisal
doesn’t give recognition for good performance. Performance appraisal does not suggest changes to improve departmental services and
outcomes.

According to my analysis there is no significant relation between rewarding systems and employee performance. Frequent rewards
provided by the company does not challenge staffs to work hard. The rewarding system also does not motivate the staffs to complete
their duties timely. The staffs are not encouraged to be creative by the reward opportunities.

From the results of the study performance management system enables employees meet all their work targets and deadlines promptly
hence improved individual employee productivity. Finally, performance management enables employees arrive on time to work and to
meetings and therefore save time in their work hence maximum employee productivity.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Consumer Food Products Ltd should identify areas of improvement in the implementation of performance
management system and align their practice(s) with national norms and standards. It is also should modify its performance appraisal
system. Performance appraisal should be fair to all employees supervised. Performance appraisal can make changes to improve
departmental services and outcomes. The rewarding systems also need to change to improve the effectiveness of the performance of
employee. Consumer Food Products Ltd. can set itself as a market leader in case of employee performance sector by maintaining
appropriate PMS rules, regulations, and policy in the organization.

VI. CONCLUSION
This research was carried out with a main purpose of finding out the Influence of Performance Management System on Employee
performance. The general objective of the study was to determine the Influence of PMS on Employee performance in Food Products
Ltd. The specific research objectives that guided the study were; to determine the extent to which development of performance plans
influences Employee performance in consumer Food Products Ltd, to assess the extent to which review of employee progress on an
ongoing basis influences Employee performance in consumer Food Products Ltd, to assess the extent to which training and development
of employee needs influences Employee performance in consumer Food Products Ltd and to assess the extent to which rewarding of
employees influences Employee performance in consumer Food Products Ltd.

Training & development of employee progress on ongoing basis influences employee productivity to a greater extend as indicated by
the findings. Actual performance could be compared to the desired performance; therefore, the outcome is evaluated and a development
plan is set based on the weakness. Coaching & feedback also influences productivity. Effective and efficient Coaching & feedback
policies should be put in place to continuously equip staff with skill. As technology changes there is need for a continuous improvement
This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2021 501
ISSN 2250-3153
and adaptability to technology. In performance management, rewarding systems influence employee productivity. A reward motivates,
attracts and retains the right kind of people hence facilitates the implementation of strategy.

REFERENCES
[1] Adhikari, D. R. (2010). Human resource development (HRD) for performance management The case of Nepalese organizations. International Journal of
Productivity d Performance Management, pp. 306-324.
[2] Almothaseb, A. A., Almahameed, M. A., & Tobeery. (June 2017). The Impact of Performance Management System on Employee Performance: The
Moderating Role of Balance Scorecard Usage. International Review of Management and Business Research, Vol. 6(Issue.2), 682.
[3] Armstrong, M. (1994). Performance Management: Key strategies and practical guidelines. London,UK: Kogan Page Limited.
[4] Assish, D. J. (March 2018). FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ADOPTION IN
ORGANISATION. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.6, 51-52.
[5] Beckons, A. c. (n.d.). Performance management in India.
[6] Desseler, G. (2007). Human Resource Management. New Delhi: Printice Hall of India.
[7] Kriemadis, T., Andreas, K., & Κριεμάδης, Θ. (2018). A Theoretical Framework for Implementing Performance Appraisal. THANOS KRIEMADIS & ANDREAS
KOTSOVOS.
[8] Nassazi, A. (2013). EFFECTS OF TRAINING ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: Evidence from Uganda. Business Economics and Tourism.
[9] Olufemi, J. (n.d.). Performance Management Systems and Productivity in the Public Sector: WITHER AFRICAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. Africa’s
Public Service Delivery & Performance Review, pp 77-105.
[10] Pulakos, E. D. (n.d.). Performance Management: A roadmap for developing,implementing and evaluating performance management systems . : Shrm
Fundation.
[11] Rastislav, R., & Petra, L. (September 2016). Strategic Performance Management System and Corporate Sustainability Concept - Specific Parametres in Slovak
Enterprises. Journal of Competitiveness, 108.
[12] Richard, H., & Ruth, W. (2005). A THEORY OF TEAM COACHING. Academy of Management Review, pp 269-287.
[13] Tomić, S., Tadić, J., & Sedlak, O. (November 2016.). Analysis of the Aspects of Performance Management System. TEM Journal, Volume 5,(Issue 4,), 452.
[14] Zulystiawati. (Vol.3, No.4, 2014). Performance Management System: The Practices in the Public Organization in the Developing Countries. (I. 2.-5.-8.
(Online), Ed.) Information and Knowledge Management, 126.
[15] Zvavahera, P. (n.d.). An evaluation of the effectiveness of performance management systems on service delivery in the Zimbabwean civil service. Journal of
Management and Marketing Research, pp 1-8.

First Author - Md. Aktaruzzaman Santi,

BBA (Bangladesh), MBA (Bangladesh)
University of Barishal, Barishal-8200, Bangladesh
Santibu069@gmail.com

Second Author – Abdur Rahim,

BBA (Bangladesh), MBA (Bangladesh)
University of Barishal, Barishal-8200, Bangladesh
Armgt372@gmail.com

This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.08.2021.p11661 www.ijsrp.org