AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS’ SATISFACTION WITH THE PERSONNEL APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Shumila Shamim; Preeti Rajoriya

doi:10.29121/shodhkosh.v7.i11s.2026.8280

Authors

Shumila Shamim Research scholar Department of public Administration Maya Devi University,Selaqui Dehradun-248011(Uttrakhand)
Dr.Preeti Rajoriya Maya Devi University,Selaqui Dehradun-248011(Uttrakhand)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v7.i11s.2026.8280

Keywords:

Equity, Feedback Quality, Higher Education, System Appraisal Personnel, Satisfaction Of Teachers

Abstract [English]

The high volumes of change in the higher education sector have seen the personnel appraisal systems rise to the forefront to measure the performance of the faculty and as a means of accountability, quality and institutional effectiveness. Such systems are however highly reliant on how the faculty perceives fairness, transparency and quality of feedbacks to be effective.The aim of the research is to assess the level of satisfaction of university teachers to personnel appraisal systems and gauge the influence of the perception of fairness and quality of feedback on the level of satisfaction.A descriptive, analytical and quantitative study design was adhered to. Primary data were collected using a structured questionnaire consisting of 5 points Likert scale to collect data on 100 university teachers (Assistant and Associate Professors). Reliability was checked using Cronbachs Alpha (0.82). Data analysis was done using the descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis, t-tests.The outcomes indicate that the faculty members are fairly satisfied (Mean = 3.2). When it comes to analyzing the correlation, it can be stated that it is true that fairness and satisfaction exhibit a strong positive correlation (r = 0.68), followed by feedback quality (r = 0.55), and transparency (r = 0.45). Regression analysis reveals that fairness ( = 0.45), feedback quality ( = 0.30) and transparency ( = 0.22) are best predictors. In addition, the level of satisfaction among Associate Professors was significantly higher as compared to the Assistant Professors.The study finds that there is a possibility of enhancing teacher satisfaction and overall effectiveness of the appraisal system in higher education through greater fairness, transparency and feedback.

References

Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.

Armstrong, M. (2014). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice (13th ed.). Kogan Page.

Blackmore, J. (2009). Academic pedagogies, quality logics and performative universities. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 857–872.

Broadbent, J. (2007). Performance management systems in higher education. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(3), 204–221.

Brown, M., Hyatt, D., & Benson, J. (2010). Consequences of the performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review, 39(3), 375–396.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.

Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace. McGraw-Hill.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). Organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48.

Daley, D. M. (2017). Strategic human resource management in government and nonprofit organizations. Routledge.

DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421–433.

DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management, and improving individual performance. Management and Organization Review, 2(2), 253–277.

DeNisi, A., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology, 1, 127–151.

Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12(4), 555–578.

Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. Higher Education Academy.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342.

Gupta, A., & Sharma, P. (2016). Performance measurement in higher education. University News, 54(12), 14–19.

Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(105), 5–20.

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto. Nature, 520, 429–431.

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2002). Faculty members’ morale. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 518–542.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349).

Murphy, K. R. (2020). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 13–31.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Satisfaction with co-workers’ behavior. Employee Relations, 22(1), 88–106.