. International Review of Management and Marketing ISSN: 2146-4405 available at http: www.econjournals.com International Review of Management and Marketing, 2017, 7(4), 6-16. International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 20176 Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and their Relation to Employees Performance in a non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan Mohammad Qwaider Alamro1, Mohammed Yasin Ghadi2*, Aymn Sulieman Al-Qatawenh3, Ayesha Farooq4 1Faculty of Management Studies and Research, Aligarh Muslim University, India, 2Faculty of Business Administration, Mu’tah University, Jordan, 3Faculty of Business Administration, Mu’tah University, Jordan, 4Faculty of Management Studies and Research, Aligarh Muslim University, India. *Email: mohammadghadi@mutah.edu.jo ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to test a hypothesized model to examine the impact of factors surrounding performance appraisal (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion and overstatement) on dimensions of subordinates’ performance (i.e., amount of work, discipline, completion of tasks and quality of work) within the water authority corporation in Jordan. The population of the study consisted of employees working in full time in the staff selection commission. To recruit the sample a developed questionnaire was distributed randomly to 300 potential employees working in water authority. After careful examination, 270 responses were valid for data analysis, resulting in an overall response rate of 90%. An empirical research method was performed to extract relevant points. Application of stepwise regression analysis and correlational tests lends support to the hypotheses of the study. The results showed that the perceptions of staff in the water authority of the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation were high. Also, the results revealed that perceptions of the staff at the water authority to the level of job performance were highly. The reported findings provide valuable insights to managers by corroborating and extending prior empirical findings in Jordan. Furthermore, the staff awareness of the effectiveness of the applied performance evaluation system in the water authority indicates that the presidents understand the staff problems. So they like to improve the daily relationship with the president. It also leads to enhance satisfaction with their relationship with their colleagues at work, their salaries and their relationship with the managers. So the availability of these dimensions will have a positive impact in improving the staff performance. Further implications, potential limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed. Keywords: Performance Appraisal, Job Performance, Water Authority, Jordan JEL Classification: L25 INTRODUCTION Performance appraisal (PA) is a systematic approach, typically performed by a supervisor for a subordinate, of identifying, observing, measuring, and recording the strengths and weaknesses of subordinates (Swanepoel et al., 2000). PA forms the core of performance management systems as it considered one of the main strategic approaches that integrate organizational policies and human resource activities (Fletcher, 2001; Bernardin et al., 1998). The importance of PA comes from its role in helping subordinates to understand their duties, expectations and performance success. Results from PAs can be used in human resource roles like promotions, transfers, reward management and termination of employees. The process of employee PA might also be affected by some factors such as rater characteristics, halo, leniency, personal bias and overstatement in the appraisal. It has been also noted that reactions and conflicts from the employee side are often inevitable in any PA system. Dissatisfaction and feeling of unfairness in the process and inequality in appraisals can shadow the benefits therein (Taylor et al., 1995). The performance is a regular work or an effort that is expected from an employee or a set of employees within a set time-frame. Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 2017 7 The exertion expected from an employee is seen in terms of results, efforts, tasks and qualities. The measurement of performance and outlining the activities which are expected to be undertaken in a specified period is very crucial since it helps to fix accountability (Rao and Rao, 2004). The employees’ performance can be appraised daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually depending on the nature of work. Employee PAs experience some shortfalls in the process which can result to the exercise adding little or no value to Human Resource Management (HRM) activities. The purpose of employee PA has been misunderstood by some workers, everyone yearns to be rated as an excellent performer. It is misunderstood that being rated poor can point out to training needs in the area of challenge or better still lead to placement to rightful roles. Additionally the appraisals have even been used as punitive measures by colleague workers (Mondy and Noel, 2005). For example if the relationship between the appraisee and the appraiser is sour, the PA will not be objective but rather subjective. On the other hand if the relationship of the appraiser and the appraisee is cordial the appraiser will seek to please the appraisee and even go to an extent of revealing the details. The purpose of this study was to expound the factors affecting the implementation of employee PAs including lack of training in appraisals, unfair bias practices during appraisals, existing employee relationships and lack of monitoring of the appraisal exercise. Employees are naturally concerned with the fairness of the process by which the PAs are conducted (Erdogan, 2002). People will value justice regardless of whether the results of the PA are appealing or not. The organizational set up and employee relationships can also affect the process of the appraisals if care is not taken (Cawley, 1998). Employee PAs should be carried out accurately because they serve as resourceful records that can be used to support HRM decisions concerning employees. Globally, conducting employee PAs has been very challenging for both the managers and employees (Brewster and Suutari, 2005). For instance, looking at the difference between Chinese and Western employee PAs, Shen found out that the Chinese appraisals are less transparent than the Western appraisals. The Chinese companies also do not provide training in order to improve appraisal skills and the appraisals are usually limited in feedback and communication (Shen, 2004). Such impediments can complicate the process making it difficult to obtain true and fair feedback of the employee’s performance. Moreover many challenges for HRM, focus upon employee PAs (Steven et al., 2011). Since employees need to have their work accurately reviewed so that they may be acknowledged and rewarded where appropriate (Francis and Brain, 1994). For the process to be effective, training and adequate preparation for both the appraisers and appraise is necessary. Supervisors should also be prepared with skills on control, coaching, counseling, conflict resolution, setting performance standards, linking the system to pay and providing employee feedback (Appelbaum, 2011). The importance of this study lies in the vitalrole that is played by an employee in the water authority, where the efficient performance of staff is necessary. The authority is the main criterion for the efficiency of its work. And this can be achieved through the proper use of scientific method in which they are applied proper standards for evaluating the performance of staff commensurate with the rapid developments faced by the authority. Unexpectedly, no research, to authors’ knowledge, has focused on the relationship between both constructs in a collectivist cultural. This study tries to subject the factors and their application in the appraisal process gives a clear importance in the acquisition of knowledge and modern methods. Therefore, the current study aims to contribute by addressing the following questions: • If there is an influence, what would be the type, direction and strength of influence of perceptions of manager PA dimensions on employees’ job performance perceptions among individuals within the water authority corporation? • What dimensions do contribute to the variation PA with employee performance among individuals within the water authority corporation? This study consists of five sections. Section one presents an introduction about the study and its variables. Section two develops the hypothesized model by reviewing the relevant literature. The methods and procedures of data collection are presented in the section three. Section four deals with analyzing the data and testing the hypotheses of the study. Finally some implications and recommendations for future research are presented in the discussion section. 2. VARIABLES OF THE STUDY AND PROPOSED MODEL The section reviews the variables of interest and its dimensions, proposed hypotheses and hypothesized model. 2.1. The Independent Variable (Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process) 1. Rater characteristics: Means the characteristicsof the individual acting appraisal directly or indirectly, as the manager’s newborn experience in administrative work may be inclined to cruelty and rigor, unlike administrative experienced managers and higher cognition. This preferred when choosing from the appraisal process that is characterized by the experience and perception and emotional stability and self-efficacy and the ability to social interaction (Hiti, 2005). 2. Halo: It means that the effects of one side of the aspects of the employee’s performance on other aspects, if the employee’s performance is excellent in one side he will be evaluated by being an excellent employee as a standard for all aspects, and vice versa if one side of the employee’s performance is unsatisfactory he will be evaluated incorrectly and so on (Hassouna, 2008). 3. Personal bias: Means the tendency of some raters to gravitate towards certain personal qualities, or may have unwillingly to groups of people who have certain qualities, such as similarities in color, creed or gender, and these biases affect their assessment of the performance of their staff (Sabbagh and Durra, 2003). Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 20178 4. Leniency and compassion: Means the tendency of some raters to give all workers the high estimates, despite the fact that some of them have poor performance and medium estimates, and gives the rest of the staff high appraisal (Durra, 2003). 5. Overstatement: Means the tendency of some raters to the trend towards exaggeration in the appraisal process, it comes assessment of some presidents of all individuals high while comes from others is low, and this is due to the impression of presidents to employees under their supervision extremist view both high estimates or low estimates (Mustafa, 2008). 2.2. The Dependent Variable (Job Performance) The concept of performance relates to all of the behavior of the individual and the organization and occupies a special place within the organization as a final product of the proceeds of all activities, and on the level of the individual and the organization. It also refers to the outcomes of human behavior in the light of the procedures and techniques that directs towards achieving the desired objectives. They appear through the following headings (Figure 1). 1. The amount of work: This refers to the keenness of employees to perform their duties and responsibilities without difficulty and accept any additional responsibilities on the required work of them, considering that it should fit with their performance. 2. Discipline: It means the desired functional behaviors of employees and their commitment to the rules and policies, regulations and procedures of the organization in which they work. 3. Accomplishing tasks: The tasks must be accomplished within time bounds and they must be clear, specific, and measurable. 4. Quality of work: Achieving the goals of individuals and the goals of the organization by exploiting opportunities that require proactive and focus on the main objectives and efforts are not distracting. Based on the discussion above the hypotheses are formulated as follows. 2.3. Main Hypothesis There is no statistically significant effect at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) for the factors of PA process (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overstatement) on job performance among employees in water authority. Based on the above discussion, we contribute to existing literature by drawing the following sub-hypotheses. 2.3.1. First sub-hypotheses There is no statistically significant effect for the factors surrounding the PA process (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overstatement) on the amount of work among employees in the water authority. 2.3.2. Second sub-hypotheses There is no statistically significant effect for the factors surrounding the PA process (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overstatement) on discipline among employees in the water authority. 2.3.3. Third sub-hypotheses There is no statistically significant effect for the factors surrounding the PA process (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overstatement) on completing tasks among employees in the water authority. 2.3.4. Fourth sub-hypotheses There is no statistically significant effect of the factors surrounding the PA process (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overstatement) on quality of work among employees in the water authority. 3. METHODS 3.1. Sample and Procedures of Data Collection The study population is all the staff in the Water Authority in Karak Governorate; where there are (600) male and female employees. (300) employees were chosen from Karak Governorate for the completion of this study which consists of three directorates, adding to them the employees who work in the center office (Table 1). We used the following equation 2 N n = 1 + Ne to extract the number of employees in this study. An adequate number of employees in the water authority of Jordan were taken in this study, (290) copies of questionnaire were distributed to them with 270 questionnaires which were done completely that means 93% of the study sample while 7 questionnaires were invalid because they are not appropriate for the investigation and studying. 263 questionaire are valid forming 87% of the study sample, and this is a sufficient percentage for Figure 1: Hypothesized model proposing the direct relationships between dimensions of PA process and dimensions of job performance Table 1: The distribution of the population and sample of the study (frequencies) Work place Number of employees Number of distributed questionnaire Completely done Valid for analysis Center office 300 145 135 130 Al-Qaser directorate 80 75 70 69 Al-Mazar directorate 120 70 65 64 AS-Safi directorate 100 0 0 0 Total 600 290 270 263 Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 2017 9 scientific study. The following Table 2 shows the characteristics of this sample. 3.2. Measures The study questionnaire was developed based on the theoretical framework of previous studies on the subject; the questionnaire consisted of three parts: Part I: Includes the expressive information of the study sample characteristics, according to demographic variables (educational qualification, age, job experience, and gender). Part II: This part includes parts which are covering the independent study variable (factors that are surrounding the process of performance) The estimation has been used in the construction of the questionnaire through the study of Abu and Ahmad, 2005; Al-Hawamdeh, 2004; Al-Karasneh, 2003 and conducted by the necessary adjustments in order to fit the objectives of the study, and these dimensions are: Rater Characteristics and are represented by the questions (1-6), the Halo which is signified by the questions (7-11), the personal bias is indicated by the questions (12-17), facilitation and humanity are pointed out by the questions (18-23), exaggerating the appraisal is signified by the questions (24-28). Part III: This part contains the points of the study that covers the variable (job performance) which was guided in the construction of the items of this variable by studying both: Pearce and Porter, 1986; Zammuto, 1982; Yassin 2010; Al-Mutairi 2011 and these dimensions are: The amount of work and the questions formed by (29-33), discipline and posed questions (34-38), the completion of tasks and questions posed by (39-42), quality of work and posed questions (43-47). I have been using the five-Likert scale to measure the answers of respondents, which calculated the items weights as follows: Strongly agree 5 points, agree 4 points, partially agree 3 points, disagree 2 points, strongly disagree. The stability of study tool was extracted using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency in its final form and for each variable in all its dimensions. The results were as shown in Table 3 as follows. 3.3. Procedures of Data Analysis Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS. 16) was used in data processing to answer paragraphs of study tool and test hypotheses, according to statistical treatments of the following: 1. Calculate the frequencies and percentages to describe the characteristics of the study sample, and calculate averages, standard deviations, and to answer questions of the study. 2. Calculation Multiple regression analysis to test the validity of the study model, and the effect of the independent variable and the dimensions on the dependent variable and its dimensions. 3. Stepwise multiple regression analysis to test the entry of independent variables in the equation to predict the dependent variable. 4. Analysis of variance to test for differences in demographic variables of the respondents’ perceptions about the dependent variable. 5. Test variance inflation factor (VIF), and test the Tolerance to make sure there is no high correlation between the independent variables. 6. Skewness test to make sure that the data follow a normal distribution. 7. Cronbach’s alpha to measure the internal consistency of the dimensions of the study. 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND HYPOTHESIS TESTING 4.1. Descriptive Analysis A descriptive analysis was performed for all the variables of the study, according to the answers of the members of the study population according to the calculated averages and standard deviations, and it ranked in descending order according to their Table 2: The distribution of the study sample by variables (educational qualification, age, job experience, gender) Variable Level Number (%) Educational qualification Secondary education and less 100 (38) Diploma 80 (30) Bachelor 53 (20) Graduate studies 30 (12) Total 263 (100) Age <30 39 (14) 31-40 110 (42) 41-50 60 (23) >51 54 (21) Total 263 (100) Job experience <5 37 (14) 6-11 131 (50) >11 95 (36) Total 263 (100) Gender Male 191 (73) Female 72 (37) Total 263 (100) Table 3: Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value of the internal consistency of each dimension of the study variables Variables Dimensions Reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) Factors surrounding the process of performance Rater characteristics 0.88 Halo 0.86 Personal bias 0.89 Facilitation and humanity 0.81 Exaggerating 0.83 Job performance Amount of work 0.89 Discipline 0.90 Completion of tasks 0.87 Quality of work 0.83 Total 0.90 Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 201710 relative importance based on the value. The overall average, taking into account the scale used included in the study, based on this calculation, the averages reached by the study values, adopted. Next to the standard interpretation of the data: 3.5 and above = High; 3.5-2.49 = Average and 2.49-1: Low. Based on this standard, if the average is larger than (3.5) this means that the level of the investigative community is high, but if the average value is between 2.5 and 3.49 - so it’s moderate. But if the average is (2.49) and below so it’s low. The following is a presentation of the results, according to the sequence of hypotheses. Table 4 shows that the overall average of the factors surrounding the process of PA in water authority was (3.59) and a standard deviation (0.54), and this means that perceptions of staff in the water authority of the factors surrounding the process of PA degree is high, it is clear that the evaluative characteristics comes first with an average (3.65), and the standard deviation is (0.55), followed by the personal bias it is with an average of (3.60), and the standard deviation is (0.57), then it followed by post exaggeration in the assessment which is (3.58), and the standard deviation is (0.59), next we have facilitation and humanity the average is (3.57), and the standard deviation is (0.61), and in last place came halo with an average of (3.55), and a standard deviation is (0.62). Table 5 shows that the average of the perceptions of staff in water authority to the level of job performance came highly and reached. The overall average level is (3.65) and the standard deviation is (0.51), and the quality of work is the highest with an average that reached (3.73), and the standard deviation is (0.52), in the second place we have task completion with an average of (3.65) And the standard deviation is (0.54), the amount of work comes in the third place with an average of (3.64), and the standard deviation is (0.56), while in fourth and last place is the discipline with and the average is (3.59), and the standard deviation is (0.59). So this much high level of performance among the staff in the water authority is considered as a positive indicator because the good performance is a quality of the Successful organizations where there is a kind of consensus and harmony among the staffs and the organizations they work in As the good performance provides many benefits such as commitment, motivation and performance and organizational citizenship, and increasing degrees of commitment, cooperation and loyalty to the organization. In addition to the important role in the decision making process. So the workers are doing their best and there is a constant sense of loyalty to the place they work in, and there will be warm feelings among them since it’s a source of livelihood for them. 4.2. Hypothesis Testing Before applying regression analysis to test hypotheses, some tests have been applied in order to ensure that the data is matching assumptions of regression analysis in the following way. In terms of that assumption which indicates that there should be no high correlation between independent variables “multicollinearity” The researcher conducted a VIF and a tolerance test for each single independent variable. Table 5 indicates that if VIF exceeds 10 and the value of the allowable variation is <0.05, this indicates that this variable has a high correlation with other independent variables and thus it will lead to a problem in the regression analysis. Researcher relied on this rule to test multicollinearity between the independent variables. Table 5 also contains the independent variables, VIF, and tolerance value for each variable. It is noted that the value of VIF for all variables were <10 and ranging from 2.789 to 5.102. It is also noted that the value of Tolerance for all variables were >0.05 and between 0.287and 0.395. Based on what previously mentioned, it can be said that there is no real problem concerning the existence of a high correlation among independent variables. In order to verify the assumption of normal distribution of the data, it has been relied on calculating the value of the skewness for the variables. As Table 6 indicates the value of the skewness coefficiency for all variables of the study were <1 Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no real problem with the normal distribution of study data. And will be sure of the validity of the model for each hypothesis. Table 7 shows the validity of the sample of the study hypotheses test, and it is well- noted that the calculated value of F is higher than Table 4: The averages and the standard deviations of the factors surrounding the process of PA in the water authority The sequence of paragraphs Factors surrounding the Eva process Average Standard deviations Rank Level according to the average 1-6 Rater characteristics 3.65 0.55 1 High 7-11 Halo 3.55 0.62 5 High 12-17 Personal bias 3.60 0.57 2 High 18-23 Facilitation and humanity 3.57 0.61 4 High 23-28 Exaggerating 3.58 0.59 3 High 1-28 Total average 3.59 0.54 - High Table 5: The averages and the standard deviations of the level of job performance in the water authority The sequence of paragraphs Factors surrounding the Eva process Average Standard deviations Rank Level according to the average 29-33 Amount of work 3.64 0.56 3 High 34-38 Discipline 3.59 0.59 4 High 39-42 Completion of tasks 3.65 0.54 2 High 43-47 Quality of work 3.73 0.52 1 High 29-47 Total average 3.65 0.51 - High Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 2017 11 the tabulated value is at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). The factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation could interpret (58.1%) of the variance out of the total dependent variable (Job performance), (45.6%) of the variance of (the amount of work) dimension, (43.2%) of the variance of the (discipline) dimension, (39.2%) of the variance of (the completion of tasks) dimension, finally the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation interpreted (53.1%) of the variance of (quality of work) dimension, all previously mentioned data confirms the role and the significant impact of the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation on the interpretation of the job performance dimensions. Consequently, we can test the hypotheses of the study. Main hypothesis: There is no statistically significant effect of the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) on the factors surrounding performance evaluation process (evaluator properties, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overestimation) on job performance among employees in water authority. Evidently, the statistical results contained in the Table 8, and by following t-test values that the following sub-variables (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, overestimation) have an impact on job performance. The value of the t is (9.530, 6.425, 5.582, 5.559) respectively. Those are moral values at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). Results indicated that the sub-variable (halo) has no impact on job performance, as the calculated value of t is (0.398). This indicates that this is not statistically significant at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). The previous findings require the following actions; namely, the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant impact in terms of statistical variables on the specific factors that surround the process of performance evaluation (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, overestimation) on job performance. On the other hand, it is required to accept the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant impact in terms of the statistical variable (halo) on job performance. A stepwise multiple regression analysis, which represents the impact of the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident, halo characteristics, personal bias, leniency, facilitation and humanity, overestimation) on job performance, as shown in Table 9, has been conducted. It was used to determine the Table 7: Result of analysis of variance to ensure to make sure of the validity of the model to test hypotheses of the study Dependent variance Independent variance Degrees of freedom The coefficient of determination R2 Calculated value of F Level of significance of F Job performance Factors surrounding the Eva process (5, 257) 0.581 136.56* 0.000 Amount of work (5, 257) 0.456 89.38* 0.000 Discipline (5, 257) 0.432 81.75* 0.000 Completion of tasks (5, 257) 0.392 75.84* 0.000 Quality of work (5, 257) 0.531 126.45* 0.000 *Statistically significant at the level of (α≤0.05) Table 8: The results of multiple regression analysis to test the effect of the factors surrounding the process performance evaluation in various dimensions of job performance Factors surrounding the process performance evaluation B The standard error Beta Calculated value of T The level of significance of T Rater characteristics 0.451 0.047 0.444 9.530* 0.000 Halo 0.019 0.047 0.018 0.398** 0.691 Personal bias 0.251 0.039 0.263 6.425* 0.000 Facilitation and humanity 0.168 0.030 0.095 5.582* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.257 0.046 0.254 5.559* 0.000 *Statistically significant at the level of (α≤0.05). **It is not statistically significant at the level (α≤0.05) Table 6: Testing of VIF, tolerance and skewness Variables Tolerance VIF Skewness Rater characteristics 0.395 3.119 0.211 Halo 0.374 3.491 0.209 Personal bias 0.287 5.102 0.129 Facilitation and humanity 0.381 2.789 0.347 Exaggerating 0.326 3.891 0.259 VIF: Variance inflation factor Table 9: The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis to predict job performance by factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation as independent variables Order entry of independent elements in the equation to predict The coefficient of determination R2 = 0.34 Calculated value of T= 2.21 *The level of significance of T = 0.000 Rater characteristics 0.496 10.852* 0.000 Personal bias 0.559 7.762* 0.000 Facilitation and humanity 0.571 6.631* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.579 6.030* 0.000 * Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05. Variable (halo) exit of the multi-regression equation Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 201712 importance of each independent variable separately in contribution to the mathematical sample, which shows the order of entry of independent variables in the regression equation, the resident properties explains the amount (49.6%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The personal bias variable explains (55.9%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The third variable, leniency, interpreted with former two variables, explains (57.1%) of the variance in the dependent variable. And finally the variable exaggeration in the assessment, interpreted with previous variants, amounted to (57.9%) of the variance in job performance as the dependent variable. The first sub-hypotheses: There is no statistically significant effect of the level of significance (α≤0.05) on the factors surrounding the performance evaluation process (evaluator properties, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overestimation) on the amount of work as one of the dimensions of job performance among employees in the water authority. The statistical results contained in the Table 10, and by following t-test values that the following sub-variables (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) evidently shows an impact on amount of work. The value of the t is (4.958, 2.213, 2.280, 4.802, 2.834), respectively; which are moral values at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). The previous findings require the following actions; namely, the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant impact in terms of statistical variables to factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) on amount of work. A stepwise multiple regression analysis, which represents the impact of the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident, halo characteristics, personal bias, leniency, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) on amount of work, as shown in Table 11, was conducted to determine the importance of each independent variable separately in contributing to the mathematical model. This analysis shows the order of entry of independent variables in the regression equation. The resident properties explains what amount (39.1%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The leniency variable explains (42.7%) of the variance in the dependent variable, the third variable exaggeration in the assessment interpreted, with former two variables, (44.2%) of the variance in the dependent variable. And finally the variable personal bias interpreted (45.3%) with previous variants amounted of the variance in the amount of work as the dependent variable. The second sub-hypotheses: There is a statistically significant effect of the factors surrounding the performance evaluation process (evaluator properties, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overstatement) on the discipline as one of the dimensions of job performance among employees in the water authority. The statistical results contained in Table 12, and by following t-test values that the following sub-variables (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) evidently shows an impact on discipline. The value of the t is (5.010, 2.011, 2.583, 4.197, 2.558), respectively, which are the moral values at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). The previous findings require the following actions; namely, the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant impact in terms of statistical variables to factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) on discipline. When a stepwise multiple regression analysis, which represents the impact of the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident, halo characteristics, personal bias, leniency, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) on discipline, as shown Table 10: The results of multiple regression analysis to test the effect of the factors surrounding the process performance evaluation in various dimensions of amount of work Factors surrounding the process performance evaluation B The standard error Beta Calculated value of T The level of significance of T Rater characteristics 0.397 0.080 0.178 4.958* 0.000 Halo 0.272 0.123 0.212 2.213* 0.027 Personal bias 0.237 0.104 0.196 2.280* 0.023 Facilitation and humanity 0.599 0.125 0.468 4.802* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.356 0.126 0.277 2.834* 0.005 * Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05 Table 11: The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis to predict amount of work by factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation as independent variables Order entry of independent elements in the equation to predict The coefficient of determination R2 = 0.55 Calculated value of T = 1.35 *The level of significance of T = 0.000 Rater characteristics 0.391 6.189* 0.000 Personal bias 0.427 5.802* 0.000 Facilitation and humanity 0.442 3.834* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.453 3.280* 0.000 *Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05. Variable (halo) exit of stepwise multiple regression equation Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 2017 13 in Table 13, was conducted to determine the importance of each independent variable separately in contribution to the mathematical model. This shows the order of the independent variables in the regression equation, the resident properties explains the amount (36.9%) of the variance in the dependent variable, leniency variable explains where (41%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The third variable is the personal bias which interpreted, with former two variables, (42.2%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The fourth variable exaggeration in the assessment income interpreted, with the previous variables, (42.8%). And finally the “halo” interpreted, with previous variants, (43.2%) of the variance in the amount of work as the dependent variable. Third sub-hypotheses: There is a statistically significant effect for the factors surrounding the performance evaluation process (evaluator properties, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overstatement) on achieving tasks as one of the dimensions of job performance among employees in the water authority. Evidently, the statistical results contained in the Table 14, and by following t-test values that the following sub-variables (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) has an impact on task achievement as the value of t is (4.702, 2.115, 2.769, 3.825, 2.584), respectively. t values are moral values at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). The previous findings require the following actions; namely, the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant impact in terms of statistical variables to factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) on task achievement. A stepwise multiple regression analysis, which represents the impact of the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident, halo characteristics, personal bias, leniency, facilitation and humanity, overestimation) on task achievement, as shown in Table 15, was conducted to determine the importance of each independent variable separately in contribution to the mathematical model, which shows the order of entry of independent variables in the regression equation, The resident properties explains (33.2%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The leniency variable explains (36.1%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The third variable, the personal bias, interpreted, with former two variables (37.4%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The fourth variable, overestimation, in the assessment income interpreted, with the previous variables, (38.6%). And finally the variable halo has interpreted, with previous variants, (39.2%) of the variance in task achievement as the dependent variable. The third sub-hypotheses: There is a statistically significant effect of the factors surrounding the performance evaluation Table 12: The results of multiple regression analysis to test the effect of the factors surrounding the process performance evaluation in various dimensions of discipline Factors surrounding the process performance evaluation B The standard error Beta Calculated value of T The level of significance of T Rater characteristics 0.413 0.082 0.183 5.010* 0.000 Halo 0.254 0.127 0.196 2.011* 0.045 Personal bias 0.276 0.107 0.226 2.583* 0.010 Facilitation and humanity 0.539 0.128 0.416 4.197* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.331 0.129 0.254 2.558* 0.011 *Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05 Table 13: The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis to predict discipline by factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation as independent variables Order entry of independent elements in the equation to predict The coefficient of determination R2 Calculated value of T *The level of significance of T Rater characteristics 0.369 5.986* 0.000 Facilitation and humanity 0.410 4.986* 0.000 Personal bias 0.422 3.152* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.428 2.998* 0.004 Halo 0.432 2.659* 0.012 *Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05 Table 14: The results of multiple regression analysis to test the effect of the factors surrounding the process performance evaluation in various dimensions of completing tasks Factors surrounding the process performance evaluation B The standard error Beta Calculated value of T The level of significance of T Rater characteristics 0.397 0.084 0.173 4.702* 0.000 Halo 0.274 0.130 0.208 2.115* 0.035 Personal bias 0.304 0.110 0.245 2.769* 0.006 Facilitation and humanity 0.503 0.132 0.383 3.825* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.342 0.133 0.260 2.584* 0.010 *Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05 Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 201714 process (evaluator properties, halo, personal bias, leniency and compassion, overstatement) on work quality as one of the dimensions of job performance among employees in the water authority. Evidently, the statistical results contained in Table 16, and t-test values that the following sub-variables (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) have an impact on work quality as the value of t is (4.552, 2.667, 3.910, 4.423), respectively. t-values are moral values at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). Results indicated that the sub-variable (overestimation) has no effect on work quality. The calculated value of t has no statistical significance on the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). The previous findings require the following actions; namely, the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant impact in terms of statistical variables on factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident characteristics, personal bias, facilitation and humanity) on work quality. On the other hand, it is considered to accept the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant impact in terms of the statistical variable (exaggerating) in work quality. A stepwise multiple regression analysis, which represents the impact of the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation (resident, halo characteristics, personal bias, leniency, facilitation and humanity, exaggerating) on quality of work, as shown in Table 17, was conducted to determine the importance of each independent variable separately in contributing to the mathematical model. This analysis shows the order of entry of independent variables in the regression equation, the resident properties explains (47.3%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The leniency variable explains (51.2%) of the variance in the dependent variable. The third variable, personal bias, interpreted, with former two variables, (52.4%) of the variance in the dependent variable. And finally the variable halo interpreted with previous variants (53%) of the variance in the work quality as the dependent variable. The overestimation variable got exit from the stepwise multiple regression equation as it is neither grounded nor statistically significant. 5. DISCUSSION 5.1. Results 1. The results showed that the perceptions of staff in the water authority of the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation was high, it is clear that the dimension of rater characteristics ranked first, followed by personal bias dimension, then exaggeration dimension, finally by dimension of leniency, and in last place came the halo dimension. This means that the more staff awareness of the system performance applied in the water authority evaluation led to an increased Table 15: The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis to predict completing tasks by factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation as independent variables Order entry of independent elements in the equation to predict The coefficient of determination R2 Calculated value of T *The level of significance of T Rater characteristics 0.332 5.892* 0.000 Facilitation and humanity 0.361 4.298* 0.000 Personal bias 0.374 3.269* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.386 2.894* 0.001 Halo 0.392 2.743* 0.013 *Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05 Table 16: The results of multiple regression analysis to test the effect of the factors surrounding the process performance evaluation in various dimensions of quality of work Factors surrounding the process performance evaluation B The standard error Beta Calculated value of T The level of significance of T Rater characteristics 0.296 0.065 0.148 4.552* 0.000 Halo 0.268 0.100 0.232 2.667* 0.008 Personal bias 0.271 0.085 0.249 3.190* 0.002 Facilitation and humanity 0.450 0.102 0.391 4.423* 0.000 Exaggerating 0.200 0.103 0.174 1.953** 0.051 *Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05. **It is not statistically significant at the level (α≤0.05 Table 17: The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis to predict quality of the work by factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation as independent variables Order entry of independent elements in the equation to predict The coefficient of determination R2 = 0.47 Calculated value of T = 3.25 *The level of significance of T = 0.000 Rater characteristics 0.473 6.794 0.000 Facilitation and humanity 0.512 5.340 0.000 Personal bias 0.524 3.673 0.000 Halo 0.530 2.963 0.000 *Statistically significant at the level of α≤0.05. Variable (exaggerating) exit of the multi-regression equation Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 2017 15 level of motivation to work and improve the performance they have. 2. The results showed that perceptions of the staff at the water authority to the level of job performance were highly. Quality of the work dimension was occupied the first rank, followed by the dimension of task completion, and in the third place the amount of work dimension, while dimension of discipline came in fourth and last place. Perhaps the emergence of this high level of performance level of the staff in the water authority is a positive indication, because the good performance is a feature of successful organizations. 3. The results indicated that the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation explain (58.1%) of the variation in the total dependent variable (job performance), as it also explains (45.6%) of the variation in dimension (the amount of work), and also explains (43.2%) of the variation in dimension (discipline), and the factors surrounding the process of performance evaluation interpreted (39.2%) of the variation in the dimension (complete assignments), and finally interpreted (53.1%) of the variation in the dimension (quality of work), This result can be explained that the performance evaluation system that practice in the Water Authority gives the staff a chance to be creative and thus increases motivation and improves the performance of the staff. 4. The results showed that the independent variable dimensions (rater characteristics, personal bias, leniency, exaggeration) have strong impact on job performance, though rater characteristics explains what amount (49.6%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and entered the personal bias variable where explains with the rater characteristics (55.9%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and entered the third leniency variable where interpreted with former two variables (57.1%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and finally entered the exaggeration where interpreted with previous variable (57.9%) of the variance in job performance as the dependent variable. This result explains that the perception of employees of the foundations of performance evaluation affects positively and significantly on the employees’ performance level. 5. The results showed that the independent variable dimensions (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency, exaggeration) have an effective impact on the amount of work, though rater characteristics explains what amount (39.1%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and the variable of leniency explains with rater characteristics (42.7%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and entered the third exaggeration variable where interpreted with former two variables (44.2%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and entered finally personal bias variable where interpreted with previous variants amounted to (45.3%) of the variance in the amount of work as the dependent variable. This result can be explained by that performance evaluation is influenced by the amount of work and judging the performance by looking at the functional behavior and personal relationships with others, in order to develop their abilities and skills to work. 6. The results indicated that the independent variable dimensions (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency, exaggeration) have an impact on the discipline, though rater characteristics variable explains what amount (36.9%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and income leniency, variable where explains with the rater characteristics (41%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and income thirdly personal bias variable where interpreted with former two variables (42.2%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and entered the fourth exaggeration where interpreted with former variables variable (42.8%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and finally entered the halo variable interpreted as with the previous variables (43.2%) of the variance in the discipline as the dependent variable. This result can be explained by that the greater the awareness of staff of the effectiveness of the applied performance evaluation system in the water authority indicates to the presidents understand of the staff problems and to improve the daily direct relationship with the president. 7. The results indicated that the independent variable dimensions (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, tolerance, exaggeration) have an impact on the completion of tasks, though rater characteristics variable explains what amount (33.2%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and income variable leniency, where explains with the rater characteristics (36.1%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and income Thirdly personal bias variable where interpreted with former two variables (37.4%) of the variance in the dependent variable, and entered the fourth exaggeration variable where interpreted with previous variables (38.6%) of the variance in the variable of, and finally entered the halo variable where interpreted with previous variants amounted to 39.2% of the variance in completing tasks as the dependent variable. This result can be explained by that: Taking into account the criteria to be used in the performance evaluation and proficiency to judge the performance assessment fairly and without external pressure, without discrimination or taking into account the relationships and personal favoritism and nepotism, contributes to increase and improve the mechanisms of the tasks completion of the staff. 8. The results indicated that the independent variable dimensions (rater characteristics, halo, personal bias, leniency) is very impressive in the quality of work, and that the rater characteristics variable explains the amount to (47.3%) of the variance in the dependent variable, And income leniency variable where explains with the rater characteristics (51.2%) of the variance in the dependent variable, thirdly income personal bias variable where interpreted with former two variables (52.4%) of the variance in the dependent variable, finally income the halo variable where interpreted with previous variants amounted to (53%) of the variance in the quality of work as the dependent variable. And went out of progressive multiple regression equation variable (exaggerated) on the grounds that it is weak variable and not significant statistically. 5.2. Recommendations The results of the study showed that there is a strong impact of the factors surroundings the process of performance evaluation on performance improving; therefore the study recommends the following: Alamro, et al.: Perceptions of Managers’ Appraisal Process and Their Relation to Employees Performance in a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Jordan International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 7 • Issue 4 • 201716 • Hold training courses (professional developments) for those who are in charge of the PA system, In order to train them to do their best to apply it fairly, effectively and objectively on the staff because of its positive impact on the performance of the organization, and on the development of human resources in general. • The importance of encouraging the participation of subordinates in the evaluation of their performance by the presidents, in order to determine the level of their performance, so that employees can do their best to accomplish their work, regardless of the difficulties they might face. • Expand the scope of the study to include other variables study to evaluate the performance and the inclusion of other sectors, and the use of different methods to collect information such as content analysis and interview method, and other methods. 5.3. Implications • The staff awareness of the effectiveness of the applied performance evaluation system in the water authority indicates that the presidents understand the staff problems. So they like to improve the daily relationship with the president. It also lead to enlarge satisfaction with their relationship with their colleagues at work, their salaries and their relationship with the president. So the availability of these dimensions will have a positive impact in improving the staff performance. • All this confirms that the perception of the staff to the effectiveness of performance evaluation system is very important in terms of its influence on the behavior within organizations, since the effectiveness of the PA system variable, has a powerful incentive to assert givens with administrative officer in general. REFERENCES Abu, S., Ahmad, N. (2005), Staff awareness of the objectivity of appraisal system of their performance and its relationship to some personal and functional characteristics. Public Administration Journal, 4, 639-708. Al-Hawamdeh, N.S. (2004), The relationship between the level of awareness and effectiveness of the justice system and all the performance evaluation of job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational loyalty, and regulatory confidence in the Jordanian service ministries. Journal of King Saud University, 1, 61-99. Al-Karasneh, N.A. (2003), The effectiveness of performance evaluation in Jordanian civil service statute, field study from the employees perspective in the ministry of health. Jordan, Irbid: YarmoukUniversity. Al-Mutairi, M. (2011), The Effect of Time-Management on Employee Performance, Applied Study in Saudi Telecom Company. Master Unpublished. Jordan, Karak: Mutah University. Appelbaum, S.H. (2011), Globalization of performance appraisals: Theory and applications. Management Decision, 49(4), 570-585. Bernardin, H.J., Hagan, C.M., Kane, J.S., Villanova, P. (1998), Effective performance management: A focus on precision, customer and situational contraints. In:Smither J.W., editor. Performance Appraisal; State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco, Cananda: Jossey Bass. p3-48. Brewster, C., Suutari, V. (2005), Guest editorial. Global HRM: Aspects of a research agenda. Personnel Review, 34(1), 5-21. Cawley, B.D. (1998), Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615-633. Durra, A.B.I. (2003), Human Performance Technology in Organizations. Cairo: Arab Organization for Administrative Development. Erdogan, B. (2002), Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12(4),555-578. Fletcher, C. (2001), Peformanceappraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 473-487. Francis, X.G., Brain, H.K. (1994), Factors that bias employee performance appraisals. Work Study, 43(3), 10-13. Hassouna, F. (2008), Human Resources Management. Amman, Jordan: Osama Publishing and Distribution. Hiti, K. (2005), Human Resources Management: AStrategic Entrance.1sted. Jordan, Amman: Dar Al-Hamed for Publication and Distribution. Mondy, R.W., Noel, R.M. (2005), Human Resource Management. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall. Mustafa, S.A. (2008), Organizational Behavior Management: A Contemporary Look to the People Behavior. Egypt, Cairo. Auditor Ahmad Sayeed Mustafa. Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. (1986), Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 211-218. Rao, T.V., Rao, T.V. (2004), Performance Management and Appraisal Systems: HR Tools for Global Competitiveness.4th ed. New Delhi: Response Books Publications. Sabbagh, Z.N., Durra, A.B.I. (2008), Human Resources Management. 1sted. Amman, Jordan: Dar Wael for Publication and Distribution. Shen, J. (2004), International performance appraisals: Policies, practices and determinants in the case of Chinese multinational companies. International Journal of Manpower, 25(6), 547-563. Steven, A.H., Michel, R., Terry, G.(2011), Globalization of performance appraisals: Theory and applications. Management Decision, 49(4),570-585. Swanepoel, B., Erasmus, B., Van, W.M., Schenk, H. (2000), South African Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. Cape Town: Juta and Company. Taylor, S.M., Tracy, K.B., Renard, M.K., Harrison, J.K., Carroll, S.J. (1995), Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495-523. Yassin, N. (2010), The Impact of Legal Knowledge on Workers Performance in Financial Circles in the Jordanian Ministries. Master Unpublished. Jordan, Karak: MutahUniversity. Zammuto, R.F. (1982), Bibliography on Decline and Retrenchment. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management System.