Gender of Respondents

Frequency Cumulative Percent

Male 7 77.8

Female 2 100

Total 9

The table above shows that out of the nine supervisors who were used for the study seven of

them representing 77.8% are males with the remaining 22.2% being females. It therefore means

that there were more male supervisors than females.

Age of Respondents
Cumulative
Age
Frequency Percent

18 - 30 1 11.1

31 - 40 6 77.8

41 - 50 2 100.0

Total 9

The table above shows the distribution of the ages of the supervisors. The table indicates that

66.7% were in the 31 – 40 brackets. Two (2) and a person each respectively were in the 41 – 50

and 18 – 30 age brackets. This means the supervisors are relatively young.

Years spent with Vat service

 Frequency Cumulative
Percent
0-3 1 11.1
4-6 3 44.4
7 - 10 3 77.8
It can be seen from the Others 2 100
Total 9
table above that three

(3) people each having been working with the service for the past 4 – 6 and 7 – 10 years

respectively. It was only two (2) people who have been with the service for more than a decade

now. It is rather surprising to find one person who has been with the service for less than four

years who is a supervisor. A possible reason for these might be that this person might be having

a high qualification.

How many employees are under your direct supervision?

Cumulative
Employee
Frequency Percent

1-3 2 22.2

4-6 6 88.9

7-9 1 10.1

Total 9 100

The above table indicates that six (6) supervisors have (4 – 6) people under them, two (2) are

having (1 – 3) people under them. It is only one supervisor who has as many as (7 – 9) people

under them. From the above it can be concluded the averagely there are about five (5) people

under every supervisor. Another reason for this average size of five (5) may be due to the various

smaller units within any of the VAT office setup.

How do you assign jobs to your subordinates?

 Frequency Cumulative
Criteria
Percent
By rank 2 22.2 It can be seen from the above
Discretion 2 44.4
table that two (2) supervisors
Competence 5 100
Total 9 each said they assign jobs to

their subordinates based on their ranks and at their own discretion. Five (5) out of the nine (9)

supervisors said they assign jobs based on the competence of each subordinate. This outcome of

a majority of the supervisors using competency in the assignment of job in the researcher’s view

is welcoming. This is so because there may be instances where somebody might have been in the

service for a long time and as such has risen to a higher rank but might not be competent in the

execution of certain jobs. The supervisor who assigns based on his/her discretion might also

make some wrong judgement and this can be very worrying.

How often do you review the work of your subordinate in a week?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent

Once 4 44.4

Thrice 1 55.6

Four times 2 77.8

Other 2 100.0

Total 9

The table above shows that four (4) supervisors review the work of their subordinates once a

week. Two (2) people said they do their reviewing four times a week and one person said he/she

does his/her reviewing thrice a week.

Do you give your subordinates feedback after reviewing their work

 Cumulative
Option
Frequency Percent

Yes 8 88.9

No 1 100.0

Total 9

It can be seen from the table above that almost all of the supervisors said they give feedback to

their subordinates after reviewing their work. This is very good because it will help the

subordinates to identify their mistakes and shortcomings and even improve in the areas where the

worker performed creditably well.

What form does the feedback take?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent

Verbal 5 55.6

Written 1 66.7

Both verbal and written 3 33.3

Total 9 100

The table above indicates that five (5) supervisors said they relay the outcome of their

subordinates performance to them verbally, three (3) of them said they use both verbal and
written means. It was only one supervisor who said he/she gives his/her feedback of the

subordinate’s performance in a written form.

Do you normally set performance target for your subordinates?

Cumulative
Option
Frequency Percent

Yes 8 88.9

No 1 100

Total 9

It can be seen from the above table that eight (8) out of the nine (9) supervisors said they

normally set performance targets for their subordinates. It was only one person who said he/she

does not set any target.

How often do you normally set the target?

Cumulative
Time of Year
Frequency Percent

Quarterly 2 12.5

Yearly 7 87.5

Total 9 100

The above table indicates that seven (7) supervisors said they normally set their targets annually

with two (2) saying they do theirs every quarter. From the above it can be said that majority of

the supervisors set annual performance targets.

How are target set for your subordinates?

Cumulative
Target
Frequency Percent

Another employee sets objectives 2 22.2

Supervisor together with subordinates 7 53.7

set objectives

other 4 30.8
Total 13 100

It can clearly be seen from the above table that most targets in the service are set by both the

supervisors and the subordinates. This in the researcher’s view is good because both parties

know their capabilities and the facilities available. This therefore will make most of the targets

realistic and achievable.

Filling of appraisal form

 Cumulative
Frequency Percent

Subordinates fill the performance 1 11.1

appraisal form for supervisors signature

Subordinates complete the 2 33.3

performance appraisal form and
supervisors review their ratings/scoring
with them

Supervisor complete the performance 2 55.6

appraisal form without discussing with
subordinates their performance

Supervisor discusses the performance 4 100

of subordinates with them before
completing the performance appraisal
9
from

Total 9

The table above which is showing how supervisors review the performance of their subordinates

indicates that out of the nine (9), four (4) of the supervisors said they discuss each of the items on

the performance sheet before completing it. Two (2) supervisors said they complete the form

without discussing it with their subordinates. A further two (2) supervisors said they allow the

subordinates to initially complete the form and they later review the scoring or ratings with them.

It was only one person who said he/she allows the subordinates to fill the form and he/she just

appends his/her signature.

 On what do you base the performance of a subordinate on for appraisal

Responses
Factors for measuring performance N Percent Percent of Cases

Competence 5 8.6% 55.6%

Loyalty to authority 3 5.2% 33.3%

Positive attitude to work 7 12.1% 77.8%

Achievement of Objectives 7 12.1% 77.8%

Sense of Responsibility 6 10.3% 66.7%

Ability to take initiative 6 10.3% 66.7%

Leadership ability 2 3.4% 22.2%

Punctuality 6 10.3% 66.7%

Contribution to team work 4 6.9% 44.4%

Working relationship 5 8.6% 55.6%

Quality of output 7 12.1% 77.8%

Total 58 100.0% 644.4%

The table above shows on what factors or points supervisors use in measuring the performance

of their workers or appraising them. It can clearly be seen that seven (7) supervisors each from

the total of 58 responses generated from the nine supervisors said they respectively use positive

attitude to work, achievement of objectives and quality of output. This is followed closely by six

(6) supervisors each who respectively said they use sense of responsibility and ability to take

initiative. 3.4% said they use leadership ability.

 Which of the points below comes as a result of your appraisal of your
subordinates?

Responses

Percent of
N Percent Cases

Promotion/Demotion 9 37.5% 100%

Pay increase 5 20.8% 55.6%

Bonuses 1 4.2% 11.1%

Training 7 29.2% 77.8%

Re - engagement on contract 2 8.3% 22.2%

Total 24 100% 266.7%

The table above represents some of the effects of the appraisal that

the supervisors carried out on their subordinates. The table

indicates clearly that out of the nine (9) people being used for the

analysis, all nine (9) of them said the result of the appraisal can

cause a promotion or demotion to a subordinate. This is

represented by 37.5% of the total valid responses of 24. Seven (7)

supervisors also said another outcome of the appraisal is training.

This training the supervisors said takes the form of in – service

training, fellowship awards etc. Five (5) and two (2) people

respectively said an outcome of the appraisal is pay increment and

the re – engagement of people on contract. From the above it can

be concluded that two major outcomes of any appraisal in the

service is due to result in promotion/demotion and training.

 What/who will you attribute for the poor performance of a subordinate to?

Responses

Percent of
N Percent Cases

The subordinates 1 10.0% 12.5%

The supervisor 2 20.0% 25.0%

The subordinate and management 1 10.0% 12.5%

The subordinate, supervisor and management 2 20.0% 25.0%

Lack of logistics in the organization 4 40.0% 50.0%

Total 10 100% 125.0%

From the table above it can clearly be seen that out of the total responses of 10 generated from

the nine responses said any poor performance of any subordinate is due to lack of logistics in the

organization. This is followed by two (2) people who said it is they the supervisors themselves.

Further two (2) supervisors said it is a combined effect of subordinates, supervisors and

management. It can therefore be said that lack of logistics in the organization is the major factor

that can lead to poor performances of subordinates.

 What/who will you attribute the excellent performance of a subordinate’s ability or
motivation to?

Responses

Percent of
N Percent Cases

The subordinate's ability 3 20.0% 33.3%

The Supervisor 5 33.3% 55.6%

The Management 1 6.7% 11.1%

The subordinate and supervisor 1 6.7% 11.1%

The subordinate, supervisor and management 1 6.7% 11.1%

Availability of facilities 4 26.7% 44.4%

Total 15 100.0% 166.7%

The table above shows the distribution of who you can attribute the excellent performance of a

subordinate’s ability or motivation to. The table shows that out of the nine (9) supervisors being

used for the study five (5) of them said the supervisor, four (4) of them said availability of

facilities and three (3) people said it is the result of the subordinates own ability.

Which of this is more important to you as a supervisor

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

The task at hand 4 30.8 44.4 44.4

All of the above 5 38.5 55.6 100

69.2 100

other 4 69.5

Total 13 100.0

The above table shows that five (5) of the supervisors said to them what is more important to

them is both the task at hand and the welfare of their subordinates. The remaining four (4)

supervisors said they consider the task at hand more important.