A ZJER  ratings survey.This paper presents the results of a study designed to investigate the ratings of supervisors and subordinates on the role performance of heads of departments in Nigerian universities.
The results indicate that the subordinates rated their supervisors’ performance low (fair) and their mean scores were generally lower (fair) than those of the supervisors except in the 'initiating’ and ’supervising’ functions where they were in agreement. A t-test result also reveal a significant difference between the ratings of subordinates and supervisors. Based on these results, it was concluded that subordinate staff in Nigerian universities had higher role expectations for their supervisors and this may have influenced the ratings

Koko, Maureen

Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research

English

This paper presents the results of a study designed to investigate the ratings of supervisors and subordinates on the role performance of heads of departments in Nigerian universities.

The results indicate that the subordinates rated their supervisorsâ€™ performance low (fair) and their mean scores were generally lower (fair) than those of the supervisors except in the 'initiatingâ€™ and â€™supervisingâ€™ functions where they were in agreement. A t-test result also reveal a significant difference between the ratings of subordinates and supervisors. Based on these results, it was concluded that subordinate staff in Nigerian universities had higher role expectations for their supervisors and this may have influenced the ratings

Koko,  Maureen

National Research Database of Zimbabwe

Performance Ratings Of Supervisors In Nigerian Universities: The Subordinates's View

IDS OpenDocs

Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research
The ZJER is published three times a year by the University of 
Zimbabwe, Human Resources Research Centre (HRRC).
Editor-in-Chief: Dr C.M. Nherera, University of Zimbabwe 
Technical Editor: M. Chirumiko
Editorial Board
Cowden E.M. Chikombah 
University of Zimbabwe 
Charles M. Nherera 
University of Zimbabwe 
Levi M. Nyagura 
University of Zimbabwe 
N.D. Atkinson 
University of Zimbabwe
Editorial Advisory Board
Linda Chisholm 
Witwatersrand University 
Donton S.J. Mkandawire 
University of Namibia 
John Schwille 
Michigan State University 
Ingemar Fagerlind 
I.I.E., University of Stockholm
ORDERING INFORMATION
Within Zimbabwe 
Annual Three Year
Individual Z$163 Z$390
Institution Z$277 Z$633
Single Copies Z$ 65 US$35
Outside Zimbabwe 
Annual Three Year
US$80 US$170
US$110 US$240
ZJER
HRRC, Faculty of Education 
University of Zimbabwe 
P O Box MP 167 
Mount Pleasant 
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel: (263-4) 303271 Ext 1893, Fax: (263-4) 302182 
e-mail: nherera@hrrc.uz.zw
Volume 10 Number 2 July 1998
ISSN 1013-3445 
Contents
The Influence of Language Assessment on Language Teaching 
Methods
L.B.M. Nkosana 92
More Exploration With Less Didacticism : A Challenge for the 
Contemporary Shona Novelist
Emmanuel Chiwome . 115
Performance Ratings of Supervisors in Nigerian Universities: The
Subordinates’ View
Maureen Koko 127
Performance Management in the Zimbabwe Civil Service: A Review 
Titus Chipangura and Norbert Musekiwa 139
Cost Recovery and its Implications for Student Teachers in
Government Teacher Education Colleges in Zimbabwe
E. Shizha 154
PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF 
SUPERVISORS IN NIGERIAN 
UNIVERSITIES: THE SUBORDINATES5 VIEW
Maureen Koko
Department o f Business Education 
Rivers State University o f Science & Technology 
Nigeria
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results o f a study designed to investigate the ratings 
of supervisors and subordinates on the role performance o f heads of 
departments in Nigerian universities.
The results indicate that the subordinates rated their supervisors’ 
performance low (fair) and their mean scores were generally lower (fair) 
than those o f  the supervisors except in the 'initiating’ and ’supervising’ 
functions where they were in agreement. A t-test result also reveal a 
significant difference between the ratings o f subordinates and supervisors. 
Based on these results, it was concluded that subordinate staff in Nigerian 
universities had higher role expectations fo r  their supervisors and this may 
have influenced the ratings.
Introduction
This study, carried out in 1993, analysed the subordinates’ ratings of the 
supervisors’ role performance in some selected universities in Nigeria.
According to Gallagher (1978, p. 35) performance ratings are sometimes 
influenced by individual points of view that do not really relate to actual job 
performance. He believes that such subjective factors may affect the 
outcome of the rating scores and should be recognised when interpreting the 
trend in performance ratings.
128 Zimbabwe Journal o f Educational Research
In Nigerian universities, people sometimes relate the role performance of 
supervisors to their work behaviour. Often, such phenomenon lead to 
expressions such as, “the incumbent
(a) is approachable and operates an open-door policy (democratic)” ,
(b) is erratic and does not involve others in decision-making (autocratic) ” 
or,
(c) is a very free and accommodating person who accepts everyone and 
eveiy situation-in the office (laissez faire)” . .
Inevitably, such impressions often influence the way co-workers will assess 
the performance of the individual.
Magin (1973) seems to support this view when he suggests that an approach 
to the evaluation of role performance should be based on the comparison of 
the incumbent’s role behaviour with role definitions as expressed by 
subordinate staff. The subordinate staff in this case are senior academic and 
nonacademic staff who work with the supervisor on a daily basis and it is 
accepted that they are capable of assessing the supervisors’ performance 
since they have some expectations of what the supervisor should do or not 
do.
Since the departmental heads (supervisors) have different tasks to perform in 
the administrative governance of the unit, the folowing questions arise:
1. What is their level of performance on these roles?
2. How do their subordinate staff perceive their efforts?, and
3. How do they rate their level of performance on each of these roles?
Thus, the main purpose of this study was to examine and analyse the ways 
subordinate staff in Nigerian universities rate the performance of their 
supervisors on each of their outlined administrative roles. Also, an attempt 
was made to compare the average ratings of both the supervisors and 
subordinates and to find out whether differences exist between the scores.
M. Koko 129
Literature Review
Universities all over the world have their own ways of doing things in order to 
achieve administrative excellence. Yet, there are no hard and fast rules on the 
acceptable standards of performance for the administrative leadership of a 
department, particularly in Nigeria. This may be so because appointments to 
the academic headship are not strictly based on expertise or experience but 
on seniority or status (Enaohwo & Eferakeya, 1989).
In Nigerian universities for example, no performance standards or criteria 
are developed for the assessment the on-the-job administrative performance 
of the departmental heads (Okoli, 1981; Koko, 1993). Departmental heads 
themselves may be handicapped to carry out effective evaluation of their 
performance as a result of this flaw. Nevertheless, Hillway (in Miller, 1974) 
contends that because of the growing influence of administration in 
educational programmes and the demands for accountability, there is need to 
evaluate the work of administrators.
In supporting this view. Miller (1974) suggests that the set objectives of each 
university should form the bases for such evaluation. Essentially, the main 
objective of universities in N igeria is to achieve academic excellence through 
effective teaching and learning, research, and community services. Miller 
goes further to suggest that assessment of performance should be related to 
expectations held for the roles and only those capable of making valid 
judgements should take part in it.
Some researchers suggest the effective tools to be utilised for such 
evaluations as rating scales, questionnaires, multiple choice documents, and 
models. According to Miller (1974) and Okoli (1981), these tools identify 
qualities for effective performance such as;
(a) the provision of team-effort leadership;
(b) the ability to organise;
(c) the encouragement of democratic participation;
(d) the ability to play active roles in decision-making in the unit;
130 Zimbabwe Journal o f Educational Research
(e) the ability to encourage effective communication network with 
subordinates; and
(f) adaptability and good judgement, etc..
Although the outlined qualities have some influence on performance, 
McFarland (1979) believes that an individual’s performance has a 
relationship to his knowledge of the subject matter. In other words, 
perception has a vital role to play in performance. Invariably, members of 
staff also may have their own role expectations for the supervisor; what he or 
she is expected to do and what he should not do. But it is a simple fact that no 
two people could perceive a phenomenon in exactly the same way and this 
may produce diverse opinions on the supervisor’s performance. It is 
expected that such differences may occur in this study and thus influence its 
results and findings.
Aderounmu and Ehiam etalor (1989) identify the adm inistrative 
responsibilities of the departmental heads in Nigerian universities as 
involving activities in directing, controlling, and leading others 
(subordinates) towards the attainment of departmental goals. This confirms 
the importance of the individual roles of the supervisor and the need for the 
regular assessment of their performance of these functions.
Method i
This study is a descriptive survey, designed to examine the level of 
administrative performance of supervisors in selected Nigerian universities 
as rated by their subordinate staff. It involved six Nigerian universities 
namely University, of Fort Haircourt, Lagos, Jos, Makurdi (Agriculture), 
Ondo State University, and Rivers State University of Science and 
Technology.
M. Koko 131
Sample
There were 2,485 subordinates (senior staff) and 257. supervisors 
(departmental heads) in the 257 academic departments in these universities. 
Ten per cent of the 2,485 (248) subordinates and 40% of the 257 (102) 
supervisors were randomly selected as the sample for the study.
Instrument
A self-developed 15-item Likert-type instrument titled Supervisors’ 
Performance Appraisal Questionnaire (SPAQ) derived from literature 
review was used to collect information from respondents.
The instrument sought information on how the subordinates/ supervisors 
perceived the roles and performance of the supervisors on some outlined 
administrative functions on which they based their ratings. These functions 
were identified as planning, leadership, organising, stimulating, decision 
making, adapting, commitment, controlling, supervising, and evaluating 
(Thble 1).
Procedure
The respondents were expected to rate the performance of the supervisors on 
his/her roles using the five-point Likert type scale of very poor (1); poor (2); 
fair (3); good (4) and very good (5).
Validity and Reliability
The questionnaire was validated using experts in educational administration 
and measurement while the reliability was established using the test-retest 
method. Twenty-five respondents in a university outside the sample were 
used and a reliability coefficient of 0.92 was'achieved using the Pearson 
Product Moment Correlation r.
132 Zimbabwe Journal o f Educational Research
Data Analysis
The mean scores achieved from the data analyses were interpreted as 
follows; 0.00 to 2.49 poor performance; 2.50 to 3.99 fair performance and 
4.00 and above, good performance. The 4.00 and above mean scores was set 
as the acceptable level of performance.
The mean scores were further exposed to higher statistical analysis using the 
t-test for significant difference between two independent means. The level of 
significance was set at 0.05.
Table 1
Average Rating of Supervisor’s Performance by Subordinates
and Supervisors
Administrative Roles Mean Scores
Subordinates Supervisors
N = 222 N = 91
1. Leadership 3.31 4.16
2. Planning 3.68 4.08
3. Organising 3.60 4.04
4. Stimulating 3.59 4.29
5. Decision-making 3.65 4.18
6. Communicating 3.63 .4.10
7. Initiating 3.66 3.93
8. Adaptability 3.63 4.10
9. Commitment 3.63 4.17
10. Controlling 3.75 4.06
11. Supervising 3.47 3.94
12. Evaluating 3.75 4.01
M. Koko 133
Table 2
T-Test Analysis of Subordinates and Supervisors’ Rating
Groups No Mean S.D S.E Critical Calculated
Supervisors 91 48.83 4.31 .452 1.96 5.23*
Subordinates 222 43.67 8.95 .603
*P 0.05
Interpretation of Individual Role Items
1. Leadership
This role item suggests a supervisor who should be able to exhibit good 
leadership traits and has the ability to inspire teamwork, originate new work 
methods and start the process as well as train staff to achieve results. The 
mean score was found to be 3.71.
2 Planning
This item describes the supervisor’s ability to establish and formulate 
effective plans to achieve desired departmental goals and objectives. The 
subordinates’ means scores were found to be 3.68.
3. Organising (Team Builder)
This item suggests that the supervisor should have the ability to organise and 
build up both human and material resources of the unit. The average ratings 
were 3.60.
134 Zimbabwe Journal o f Educational Research
4. Stimulating
This role suggests a supervisor who is able to motivate his/her staff to make 
greater efforts towards the attainment of departmental goals. The mean score 
was 3.59.
5. Decision-making
This item describes a supervisors with the ability to make sound and logical 
decisions, exercise good judgement and see problems objectively. The 
average rating was 3.60.
6. Communicating
This item suggests the ability of the supervisors to relate effectively with 
his/her subordinates in order to encourage group cohesiveness and 
participation as well as communicate departmental needs to higher 
authorities. The mean score was 3.65.
7. Initiating
This role item suggests the supervisor’s ability to introduce new methods of 
work, start the process through showing examples as well as recruit qualified 
and competent staff in the department. The rating score was 3.66.
8. Adaptability
Thishas to do with the supervisor’s ability to accept changing conditions and 
handle special projects without having prior knowledge of the nature of 
work. The mean score was 3.68.
9. Commitment
This described the supervisor’s ability to give self-less service to 
subordinates and the community. The mean score was 3.63.
M. Koko 135
10. Controlling
The supervisor’s ability to exercise adequate control over all human and 
material resources of the sub-units, and maintain standards of work. The 
rating score was 3.75.
11. Supervising
This role item describes the ability to effectively direct, guide, and evaluate 
the job performance of workers and at the same time, ability to prepare and 
train staff on the job. Subordinates’ mean score was found to be 3.47.
12. Evaluating
This item describes the ability of the supervisor to appraise the extent to 
which departmental goals are achieved and suggest a line of action to 
maintain achieved goals. The rating score was 3.75.
Findings
Table 1 displays the ratings of supervisors and subordinates on the 
performance levels qf the supervisor’s administrative roles. Column 2 
outlines the 12 administrative roles; columns 3 and 4 indicate the mean 
scores of the raters.
Some interesting findings were recorded in this study.
(1) The subordinates’ ratings on each of the twelve administrative roles of 
the supervisors suggest that they had higher expectations which the
. supervisors could not meet. They rate the supervisors’performance on 
all the roles as fair.
(2) Generally, the subordinates’ rating were below that of the supervisors 
on all the 1 12 functions.
136 Zimbabwe Journal o f Educational Research
(3) There was an agreement between the subordinates and supervisors on 
their ratings in two functions (initiating and supervising). They both 
scored these functions as ‘fair’ (3.66/3.93; 3.47/3.94) respectively.
(4) It was found that generally, the supervisors rated themselves higher 
while the subordinates rated them lower.
(5) Although the supervisors rated themselves high (good) they did not 
find their performance on the initiating and supervising functions as 
good.
(6) generally, it was found that the supervisors ’ performance on each of the 
roles as rated by the supervisors themselves and the subordinates did 
not meet the acceptable level of ‘good’ performance.
Discussion and Conclusions
The role performance of supervisors in the universities studied was generally 
inadequate. The findings revealed that subordinate staff in , Nigerian 
universities held higher expectations for the different roles of their 
supervisors hence their ratings were lower than those of their bosses. This is 
not surprising because there are no set standards by which the supervisors 
can assess themselves while performing their duties in the universities. Also', 
the supervisors usually do not have enough time as a result of tenure 
limitations (two years), to reevaluate their performance and improve on 
them.
Although the subordinates and the supervisors were in agreement in their 
rating in two of the functions (initiation and supervision), subordinates did 
not rate these functions as ‘good’. It was expected that the subordinate raters 
would record high performance scores on these two functions. Firstly, when 
the subordinates were given the instruments, they expressed their personal 
views that most of the supervisors are slave drivers and high-handed in their 
approach towards their workers. Thus, it was expected that they, would score 
them highly for effectively executing that particular function but the reverse 
was the case. Secondly, on the ‘initiation’ function, the raters expressed 
surprise that the supervisors were expected to introduce new ways of doing 
things in the department. They believed there were existing ways of running
M. Koko 137
the departments in Nigerian universities which could not be changed. Yet, 
this perception did not influence a higher rating by the subordinates. This 
result is in consonance with the works of Lipham and Hoeh (1974,), Okoli 
(1981) and Koko (1993) who found a relationship between the leadership 
pattern of the supervisor and his/her subordinates’ acceptance of his/her 
behaviour. In the same vein, Magin (1973 and Okoli (1981) also asserted 
that role evaluation should be based on expectations held for the role(s). 
This has been confirmed by the present result.
The result from the r-test analysis reveal a difference between the ratings of 
supervisors and their subordinate staff (P). This finding suggests that the 
supervisors’ role performance as expected by the subordinates did not meet 
the acceptable level.
Essentially, there is need to create workers’ awareness in the importance of 
the role of departmental heads in Nigerian universities and to encourage 
them to contribute fully to the achievement of departmental goals. There 
should be. regular assessment of the departmental heads’ (supervisors) 
administrative performance in order to improve the administrative skills of 
the supervisors.
References
Aderounmu, O.W. & Ehiametalor, E.T. (1981). An introduction to the 
administration o f schools in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Evan Brothers 
Limited.
Enaohwo, J.O. & Eferakeya, O.A. (1989). Educational administration. 
Ibadan, Nigeria: Paperback Publishers Limited.
I
Gallagher, M.C. (July-August 1978). More bias in performance evaluation. 
Personnel, 56 (4), 35-40.
Koko, M.N. (1993). A perceptual study o f the administrative performance 
o f departmental heads in Nigerian universities. (Unpublished M. Ed Thesis). 
Rivers State University o f Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
138 Zimbabwe Journal o f Educational Research
Lipham, J.M. &Hoeh, J.A. Jr. (1974). Theprincipalship: Foundations and 
functions. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
McFarland, D.E. (1979). Management: Foundations and practices. New 
"fork: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.
Magin, D. (Winter, 1973). Evaluating the role performance of university 
lecturers. University Quarterly 28 (1), 92-96.
Miller, R.I. (1974). Development programs fo r  faculty evaluation London, 
Jossey Bass Publishers.
Okoli, N.J. (1981). Assessment o f administrative Junctions o f department 
heads (academic) at the University o f Ife. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis, Ile-Ife, 
Nigeria, i ■ '
Okolo, W.O. (1981). Personnel development. In J.A. Aghenta & E.A. 
Arubayi (Eds.), Towards efficiency in school administration. Ibadan: Fiesta 
Press.
This work is licensed under a 
Creative Commons
Attribution -  Noncommercial - NoDerivs 3.0 License.
To view a copy of the license please see: 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
This is a dow nload from  the BLDS Digital L ibrary on O penD ocs
http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/
Institute o f 
Development Studies


https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/20.500.12413/5514/1/Koko%2c%20M.%20ZJER%20%20Vol.%2010%2c%20no.2.pdf

Performance Ratings Of Supervisors In Nigerian Universities: The Subordinates's View

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

National Research Database of Zimbabwe

IDS OpenDocs