More striking is that these are the same employees with high levels of dissatisfaction
with the job. Indeed, the appraisal system is also contextualised on the false assump-
tions that the recruitment process was based on sound principles of merit and fairness.
However, as correctly concluded by Okpara & Wynn (2008) in their study of Nigerian
cases, networking through the informal side of the recruitment equation has a major role
to play in explaining why people get jobs and that they may have failed to perform be-
fore they even start working. Employee appraisal becomes a futile exercise. Since it is
somehow common knowledge that there is a very close link between employee dissatis-
faction and poor job performance, an appraisal process that does not reduce employee
dissatisfaction is not effective. Thus, common wisdom would tell us, that there is no
point to sitting with a dissatisfied employee to plan for a serious performance manage-
ment system that does not first of all, start by addressing the causes of dissatisfaction
and how to deal with them. Some causes of dissatisfaction are as old as the job.
The alternative model
The arguments raised in the previous section conclude that the current OPRAS model is
useful and perhaps could be amended to incorporate the suggestions. However, thinking
of an alternative and perhaps a better model is also a step forward. The alternative
OPRAS model that addresses the mismatch between employee and employer expecta-
tions is proposed in Figure 12.2. The figure complies with the former framework (Fig-
ure 12.1) in that the open performance appraisal system has to be guided by the national
reform agenda, public service charter, strategies, objectives and targets. However, the
remaining components of the model are reviewed to establish the required direction in
the suggested model on the following areas, as shown by the flow arrows.
- Required individual objectives and outcomes as shown in the model are important
because requirements for the achievement of the objectives and targets in the public
service charter will determine the demands on the part of the job holder and the
challenges in meeting expectations (Investing - human capital theory) - Joint agreement on employer expectations based on a realistic review of job descrip-
tions and specifications. This considers the changing nature of the jobs of public
servants as a result of changing philosophy in public management. It is based on the
reality that most public servants are doing jobs for which they did not apply or did
not previously intend to do. (behavioural and institutional theory). - Joint agreement on how employee expectations will be met. Again, this is in line
with the knowledge that meeting employee’ expectations matters in encouraging
commitment to performance (behavioural theory). - Joint agreement on employee expectations on how facilitation of performance will
be managed is important in order to reduce tendencies for lip service when resources
and other support for job performance are sought (institutional theory). - As we move down the arrow, there is room for joint agreement on the process of
employee facilitation. Here the intention is to lessen opportunities for failure to get
support by giving reasons such as lack of appropriate mechanisms, powers to make
certain decisions or failure to take actions (behavioural and institutional theories). - Finally there is joint performance review that will tell us how much an individual
has contributed in achieving the objectives and targets outlined in the performance
charter and the relationship with the broad reform agenda. It is also where