CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

• BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Performance according to oxford advanced learners dictionary (Hornby, 2000) is how well or how badly you do something (ABU 2004) has also described performance as the “effectiveness” and “efficiency” of the workers in achieving individual goods and organizational effectiveness.

Evaluation on the other hand is forming an opinion of the amount, value or quality of something after thinking about it carefully while productively is the rate at which a worker produces goods and the amount produced compared with hoe much time work and money is needed to produce them.

Performance evaluation is system which provides organizations with a means of identifying not only what people’s performances levels are but in which areas, such performance needs to improves, if the human resources utility is to maximized (Abu 2004).

Ebreo (2004) asserts that employee performance makes the greatest impact in any business. Failure to deliver expected results can greatly affect productivity, quality and profitability. Most managers attribute employee performance to knowledge, skills and attitude. There are however more factors that affect performance than these, which if not met may compromise effective performance.

He further viewed that the person to do the job should be able to understand and accept which and what kind of control are in place. Lack of control can lead to inadequate performance, lack of understanding can also lead to inadequate performance. At the unset, it should be agreed between both the employer and employee. What timeline to follow, how productivity and quality is going to be measured and how this will impact the persons performance. It should also be made clear how progress is going to be monitored and what to do if performance does not meet expectations.

 

1.2   STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The essence of performance evaluation is to evaluate performance of employee and develop them for the present and future need, had been successful through with some problems which underlines its success and are stated as follows.

 

1. Can performance evaluation have impact on workers productivity?
2. Is the problem caused by the unrealistic methods of its approach?
3. Could it be traceable to incompetent appraisers involved in the appraisal systems?
4. Could it be due to lack of adequate communication to employees and their non involvement in the evaluation exercise.

 

1.3   OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The search for the best way to evaluate workers towards effective performance to work has been on since and it seems to be a continuing process.

Researchers have directed all their efforts to see how performance evaluation impact on workers productivity. The primary objectives of this study are:

 

1. To analyze the impact of performance evaluation as regard to workers productivity.
2. To assess the extent of success of performance evaluation.

• To discover the extent to which cooperation with others in the work place enhances productivity.

 

1.4   STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS

Ho: performance evaluation has no impact on workers productivity.

Hi: performance evaluation has impact on workers productivity.

 

1.5   SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The researcher is interested in investigating the problem of performance evaluation system because in most organization today, many workers do not give their contribution to the organization while the organization as well is not maximizing its goals.

 

The success of any organization largely depends in the performance of its employees.

1. The study will give insight to the objective of performance evolution system in an organization, the most effective methods of performance evaluation system to be used and suggest other ways in which employees can be evaluated.
2. This study is also significant to those that want to know what causes changes or improve workers productivity as the study seeks to reveal those hidden problems, believing that problem identified are problem solved.
3. The study seeks to evaluate both in superiors and subordinate.

 

1.6   SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study was intended to be a case study of Nigerian breweries Plc Kaduna and therefore cover all staff of the organization.

It is the intension of the researcher to find out how this organization evaluate its staff in relation to their performance and what  has been the outcome of this system to the organization as a whole, and relation of the employees of the organization when appraised.

 

1.7   LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The obvious limitations of the study of this research work are as follows.

1. Lack of adequate finance to carry out the study.
2. Time was also not much available to the researcher.
3. Lack of adequate material and attention from workers in the organization.

 

1.8   HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE STUDY

For the purpose of this research, the researcher will talk less about the general background of Nigerian Breweries Plc and focus the case study in particular Kaduna Breweries branch.

Nigeria Breweries Plc was incorporated in 1946. The duties of association was signed on the 30^th day of the month of November of that year by John Stanley Huge and FW. Murphy’ both of Lagos Nigeria.

After this board of directors was inaugurated and land was acquired in Iganmu, Lagos where the Lagos Breweries is situated.

Work commence on site in 1974 for the building and virtually all the machinery and technical personnel from abroad. It took them two years for the work to be completed.

The company recorded landmark when the first bottle of star, beer was rolled of the settling line in its Lagos brewing in June 1949.

The second brewery was located in Abaans was commissioned in 1959. While Kaduna Brewery was commissioned on 11^th January 1964 by the Northern Nigerian minister of trade and industry. Michael Audu Baba Wazirin Shandan.

The Nigerian Breweries have high quality products  which are distributed to nooks and crooners of Nigeria. The Nigerian Breweries Plc have five quality brand which are;

The star larger beer 1949

The guilder larger beer 1970

Maltina non-alcoholic drink 1976 and  additional  types of Maltina called moltina exotic and strawberry in 1996.

Moltina pineapple in 2000

Legend extra stout 1992

A MOSED Molta 1994. in the late eighties the company introduced a product named “green land” but was unable to stay long in the market due to the believe that it contain alcohol.

 

The company’s high profitability and successful operation can be trace to good quality products and efficient management of the organization (Nigerian Breweries).

 

As a result of its efficient manpower planning.

 

1.9   DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

1. Performance: This refers to how well or how badly one does usually in work.
2. Evaluation: this is a judgment of the value, performance or nature of something. In organizational terms, it can be said to refer strength and weakness in a job.

• Productivity: the volume and quality (results) achieved by the lead person and the employees.

1. Quality of work: The level of overall performance, work that is neat, accurate, thorough, complete and free from errors.

Motivation: motivation denotes the reason why someone or something does or behaves in a particular way. Here it is used mostly to express what jingers an employee to work harder to or ways in which to make employees work harder.