Gender of Respondents

Cumulative

Frequency Percent
Male 32 68.1
Female 15 31.9

Total 47 100

The table above shows that of the 47 people being used for the study thirty – two (32) of them

representing 68.1% were males with the remaining fifteen (15) representing 31.9% being

females. It can therefore be said that either there are more males than females in the VAT service

office where the study was carried.

Age of Respondents

Cumulative

Age Group Frequency Percent

18 - 30 10 21.3
31 - 40 28 80.9
41 - 50 8 97.9
51 - 60 1 100.0
Total 47

The above table shows age distribution of the respondents. The table shows that 28 (59.6%)

people were in the 31 – 40 age group, ten (10) and eight (8) people respectively fell in the 18 –

30 and 41 – 50 age group . It can be said that majority of the respondents were in the 31 – 40 age

group.

Number of years in the employment of the VAT service

 Cumulative

Frequency Percent
0-3 4 8.5
3-5 15 40.4
6-9 12 66.0
10 and above 16 100.0
Total 47

The table above indicates that nineteen (19) of the respondents representing 40.4% having being

working with VAT for at most five (5) years now. The remaining twenty – nine (29) representing

59.5% have been working with VAT for at least five (5) years now. The researcher can therefore

say that majority of the people under the study have gotten a fairly good experience which in the

researchers view is encouraging.

How do you set your target?

Cumulative

Frequency Percent
Myself 6 12.8
With supervisor 37 91.5
By supervisor 4 100
Total 47

The above table clearly shows that as many as thirty – seven (37) of the people being used for

the analysis are representing 78.7% said their targets are set together with their supervisors. Out

of the remaining ten (10) people left, six (6) and four (4) people respectively said their targets are

set by themselves and supervisors. This outcome in the researchers view is gratifying because the

subordinates and supervisors knows themselves, their capabilities and what is at stake and

therefore setting the targets together is at least half of achieving them.

How often are you appraised base on your target in a year?

 Cumulative

Frequency Percent
Once 42 89.4
Twice 3 95.7
Thrice 1 97.9
Four times 1 100
Total 47

The table above represents the distribution of how many times respondents are appraised in a

year based on their targets. The table shows that as many as 42 representing 89.4% said they are

appraised once and three (3) people said theirs is twice a year. This shows that majority of the

workers are appraised once in a year.

Are you normally aware of the criteria used for your appraisal?

Cumulative

Optional Frequency Percent

Yes 35 74.5
No 12 25.5
Total 47 100

It can be seen from the table above that thirty – five (35) of the respondents representing 74.5%

of said they were clearly aware of the criteria that is used in appraising them the remaining 12

said they have no fair idea of the criteria on which they are appraised. It can be concluded that

nearly three – quarters (3 /4) of respondents know the criteria on which they are appraised.

Respondents gave following reasons why in their view it is important the workers to know the

criteria on what they are appraised on:

• It helps you to improve upon your personal performance

• It makes the system very transparent so that some workers will not think their supervisors

do not like them.

• It helps you in achieving your set targets

 Criteria used for the assignment of job.

Responses
Criteria for job assignment N Percent Percent of Cases
Competence 32 17.5% 69.6%
Loyalty to supervisor 8 4.4% 17.4%
Positive attitude to work 18 9.8% 39.1%
Rank 30 16.4% 65.2%
Sense of responsibility 21 11.5% 45.7%
Initiative 10 5.5% 21.7%
Leadership ability 11 6.0% 23.9%
Seniority 9 4.9% 19.6%
Punctuality 10 5.5% 21.7%
Contribution to team work 11 6.0% 23.9%
Working relationships 9 4.9% 19.6%
Quality of output 14 7.7% 30.4%
Total 183 100% 397.8%

The above table shows what in the respondents view are the basis on which a job is assigned.

The table shows that of the 47 people involve in the analysis 32 of them said competency is the

reason for the assignment of jobs, eight (8) said loyalty is the criteria, thirty (30) people said

rank, twenty – one (21) and fourteen (14) people respectively said sense of responsibility and

quality of output. With the following percentages 17.5, 16.4, 11.5 and 7.7 it can clearly be seen

that competency, rank, sense of responsibility and quality of service are the four major criteria

used in the assignment of jobs.

Does your supervisor discuss the findings of your work reviewed with you?

Cumulative

Option Frequency Percent

Yes 39 83.0
No 8 17.0
Total 47 100
The table above is indicating that 39 (83.0%) of the respondents said their supervisors normally

discuss the findings of reviewed work with them. Eight (8) people responded in the negative

when they were asked the question whether their supervisors discuss the findings of their

reviewed with them. The researcher finds this result encouraging because in his view this will

help the subordinates to improve upon the areas where they fell short, further improve on the

areas where they did for the betterment of the service. This will also help the supervisor to know

the capabilities of his/her subordinates and know the kind of jobs to give them and the kind of

achievable target that they can set.

Does your supervisor allow you to participate in certain activities?

Responses
Are you allowed to participate in the following N Percent Percent of Cases
Taking initiative 27 31.0% 62.8%
Decision making 25 28.7% 58.1%
Making recommendation 24 27.6% 55.8%
Delegation of authority 11 12.6% 25.6%
Total 87 100.0% 202.3%

The above table shows the distribution of whether the various supervisors under which the

subordinates work allowed them to participate in the above mentioned points. The table above

indicates that of the forty – seven (47), twenty – seven (27), said they are allowed to take some
initiate they think it will help the service to grow. Twenty – five (25) and twenty – four (24)

people respectively said they are allowed to participate in decision making and in making

recommendations.

Do you normally discuss personal issues with your supervisor

Cumulative

Frequency Percent
Valid Yes 19 40.4
No 28 100.0
Total 47

The above table shows that nineteen (19) of the respondents responded yes when they were

asked whether they normally discuss their personal issues with their supervisors. The remaining

twenty – eight (28) said they do not discuss their personal issues with their supervisors.

How is your performance reviewed by your supervisor

 Methods used in

assessing the
Cumulative

performance Frequency Percent

I fill the performance 5 10.6

appraisal form for the

signature of my supervisor
I complete the performance 31 76.6

appraisal form and my in -

charge reviews the

ratings/scoring with me
My supervisor completes the 6 89.4

performance appraisal form

without discussing with me

my performance
Others 5 100.0
Total 47

The above table is telling us that 31 (66%) respondents said the method that is used in the

reviewing of their performance is the completing the performance appraisal form and their

supervisor in turn reviews the rating/scoring with them. Six (6) and five (5) people respectively

said their supervisor completes the form without discussing it with them and they fill the form

for the endorsement by their supervisors. Below are some of the ways given by five (5) of the

respondents as to how their performance is reviewed:

• The supervisor reviews/completes the performance appraisal form together with them.

• The supervisor fills the appraisal form independently and discusses it with them.
 Which of the following is as a result of your performance

Responses
Which of the following is as a result of your performance? N Percent Percent of Cases
Promotion/Demotion 36 48.0% 80.0%
Pay Increase 7 9.3% 15.6%
Bonuses 9 12.0% 20.0%
Training (in - service training, fellowships awards) 19 25.3% 42.2%
Re - engagement on contract 2 2.7% 4.4%
Disciplinary action 2 2.7% 4.4%
Total 75 100.0% 166.7%

The table above once again shows the distribution of what in the opinion of the subordinates is as

a result of the performances. The table indicates that out of the 47, 36 of them said any

promotion or demotion that they experience is as a result of their performances. Nineteen (19)

and nine (9) people respectively said training and bonuses. It can therefore be concluded that

with as many as 36 people out of the total of 75 responses generated from the 47 respondents it

can therefore be concluded that majority of the subordinates are convinced that a result of their

performance is either a promotion or demotion. This is followed by them having the

opportunity to go for further training and earning fellowship awards. The lowest are they being

re – engaged on contract basis and they receiving disciplinary action from their superiors.

What/who will you attribute your performance?

Responses
What/who will you attribute your performance? N Percent Percent of Cases
Self 11 20.4% 26.8%
supervisor 8 14.8% 19.5%
Management performance 5 9.3% 12.2%
My supervisor and management 2 3.7% 4.9%
Lack of facility in the organization 28 51.9% 68.3%
Total 54 100.0% 131.7%
The table above indicates that twenty – eight (28) of them representing 51.9% of the total 54

responses generated from the 47 respondents said they believe a main cause of any poor

performance on their part will be due to lack of facilities in the organization. A second and third

highest reason that they think they can attribute to any poor performance is themselves and their

supervisors. It can therefore be concluded from this study that lack of facilities in the

organization is the major cause of poor performance of the workers in the service. This is so

because of the nearly half (51.9) of the total 54 responses ascribing their poor performance to

this.

When respondents were asked about the view about their supervisors, below are some of their

answers given:

• Very cordial and with good human relations who always ensures that the right things are

done.

• Very supportive and helpful most often

• Very co – operative, encouraging and understanding

• Technically endowed and ready to open up for discussion

• Very friendly, approachable and accommodating

Apart from some few people who said the supervisors only think about themselves and does not

think about the welfare of the staff and at times are a contributing factor for workers poor

performance it can generally be said that the situation is not bad.