Monitoring and Evaluation Practices and Academic Staff Motivation: Implications in Higher Education Within Rwandan Context

M&E Toward Faculty Motivation

Research done on the perspectives, attitudes, and positions of academics toward quality assurance showed that academics may resist or comply with quality assurance procedures (Cardoso, Rosa, & Santos, 2013). According to J. Zhang (2008), academics find performance appraisal acceptable if they lead to satisfaction, suggestions for improvement, or rewards. Shah and Nair (2012) suggested that assessments, when perceived by faculty as improvement-oriented, can generate positive outcomes and even reinforce the relationship of professionals with their organizations. On the contrary, J. Zhang (2008) noted that when assessment is perceived as controlling, it induces pressure and tension and may undermine employee motivation.

A study by Cardoso et al. (2013) highlighted some attitudes of academics toward quality assurance such as generating reports that “do not engage with the heart of the academic endeavor,” and they are viewed as mainly related to monitoring and control rather than with enhancement and transformation. Furthermore, the study showed that academics tend to consider its impact as “moderately positive,” and as an opportunity to reinforce institutional quality. In general, faculty were positive about the effects of quality management in terms of improvement and negative about its effects in terms of control. The analysis of these considerations in relation to faculty attitudes provides further insight into faculty motivation by the performance M&E practices. In this respect, faculty motivation was discussed in relation to M&E practices.

University faculty members are intrinsically motivated to teach well as a matter of professional duty and pride (Bam, 2005). Although there could be linkages between M&E and faculty motivation, a study by Aslam (2011) identified ambiguity in the appraisal process as one of the factors that led to poor motivation. Many researchers have established that faculty members of higher education prefer intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation (Hum, 2000; Siddique et al., 2011). The factors that can motivate faculty include fascination of research work, recognition, honor, autonomy, career development, and helping others to learn (Siddique et al., 2011). Moreover, Kont (2013) noted that if performance is recognized by others within the organization, it is often rewarded by financial and other benefits. Furthermore, research by Siddique et al. (2011) revealed that faculty members need personal and professional autonomy in their work and decision making. Based on the findings of the aforementioned studies, we expect that the effect of different M&E practices on faculty’s motivation would be mediated by quality of feedback provided to them and their attitudes toward the process.

Feedback Process and Faculty Motivation

Existing research indicates the value of feedback for cognitive, affective, motivational, and behavioral outcomes (Mulder, 2012). Cognitive aspects include perception and acceptance of feedback, while affective outcomes are more about satisfaction (Jawahar, 2010). Motivational outcomes, however, include feeling of competence and autonomy, while behavioral ones consider performance and participation in development activities. Mulder (2012) further observed that when feedback is provided, it can only have positive or negative effects when it is received by one who can accept it.

J. Zhang (2008) provided evidence that the improved motivation toward research and teaching goals has more to do with constructive, supportive and empowering feedback on expectation within the context of academic values. Hughes (2006) established that commitment to high standards of performance is achieved through shared professional norms than bureaucratic controls. It is evident that accuracy in performance appraisal is precondition for accurate and meaningful feedback (Govaerts, Van de Wiel, & Van der Vleuten, 2012). It is important to observe that performance reviews that are confidential to the individual are likely to have a positive impact on academic behavior as compared with strategies that lead to public humiliation or loss of status. It, therefore, follows that whatever sources are used, a reward system should be transparent and not overly bureaucratic. M&E practices guide staff and their supervisors toward targeted results and necessary improvement strategies. They also ensure that staff receives fair and accurate feedback, and increase value to their contribution toward institutional goals.

M&E of staff performance have been applied in many organizations. However, literature reveals that many studies have focused on staff attitudes toward performance assessment (Ojokuku, 2013). There is limited study focusing on the relationship between M&E practices that are applied in higher education institutions and staff motivation. From the relevant existing literature, there is a need to contribute toward filling this gap to enable leaders in higher education to intervene by the use of appropriate practices to enhance staff motivation. Furthermore, there is need for M&E to be taken to a higher level of consideration where both the supervisee and supervisor take them more seriously and accord them necessary attention with the sole aim of improving quality of work. To this end, coherent approaches into M&E process of faculty need more research.

Conceptual Framework

The job characteristic model of Hackman and Oldham (1976) assumes that autonomy and control over work, as well as feedback, increase employee motivation (Okumbe, 2007). The study used this framework and research on staff attitudes toward M&E practices, feedback process and staff motivation to develop a model consisting of several variables, embedded in three general constructs, and the relationships among these variables. The M&E practices include staff self-evaluation, peer evaluation, student staff evaluation, and staff evaluation by the supervisor.

The perspective of faculty members being evaluated is essential, because it allows them to express their own views about their performance and reflect on the personal and institutional factors that had an impact on their teaching or performance. In the context of peer evaluation, evaluators are most likely to be faculty members who are recognized as having in-depth subject knowledge and pedagogical expertise. They are highly proficient and successful practitioners who are able to guide and support others in the teaching process. Through peer evaluation, the staff would benefit a lot from the comments by the more experienced colleagues. Also, the method of seeking feedback from students about a course or module helps to reflect upon features of the educational provision, its delivery, and their own performance and experience.

HODs are the ones entrusted with the supervisory role of the faculty members. Thus, the way HODs execute this role as supervisors, including the quality of feedback provided, has direct impact on the teaching staff’s behavior, hence their motivation to work. Among the techniques that can be used by HODs, observation and documentation of performance on day-to-day basis are included by filling the periodic evaluation forms such as performance contract forms. It is also envisaged in the framework, that the extraneous variables have the potential to influence staff motivation. For instance, the staff performance measurement might be satisfactory, or be carried out within agreed framework and hence hope for better motivation outcomes. However, whenever one of the extraneous variables (M&E policies, feedback, reward system, and staff attitude) intercept between the independent and dependent variables, staff motivation is likely to be affected positively or negatively; that is, for the case of this study, the role played by the M&E policies and regulations, quality of feedback (positive or negative), reward system, and the attitude of staff toward M&E practices.

The quality of feedback to the faculty members and their attitudes toward it are two important components in determining the faculty members’ behavior subsequent to the M&E practices. When a staff experiences a positive feedback such as appreciation for the work well done, he or she may respond to the encouragement by increasing work efforts. On contrary, while experiencing a negative feedback such as performance disapproval, he or she may have different feelings such as incompetence or lack of recognition, which may lead to low performance and hence the failure to accomplish personal and organizational goals and objectives. Furthermore, the policies regulating M&E at the College of Education, as well as the rewarding system would determine the outcomes such as promotion, awards, or other benefits to faculty members.

X. Zhang (2014) observed that there are twelve motivation factors (extrinsic and intrinsic): “promotion, financial rewards, performance appraisal, tenure, recognition, respect, interest, scholar improvement, contribution, sense of achievement, responsibility and autonomy” (p. 82). Therefore, we adapted the job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1976) to the context of university and the observation from X. Zhang (2014) to determine whether monitoring and evaluating affect motivation of faculty members with consideration of the provided feedback.

M&E Practices

Respondents were asked to give their views on M&E practices. The rating was done according to 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. The descriptive statistics for the staff’s responses are shown in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Monitoring and Evaluation Practices Applied at UR-CE.

Item statement	Frequency	M	SD
I assess my teaching by seeking comment from students	98	3.25	1.04
I assess my teaching regularly	98	2.36	.98
I invite my fellow lecturers to assess my teaching	98	1.98	.76
I discuss my performance with my head of department	98	3.34	.83
Students’ feedback helps me improve teaching	98	2.80	.99
I learn from my fellow lecturers’ comments	98	1.91	.90
There is individual bias with peer assessment	98	3.02	1.01
Average	98	2.67	0.93

Note. UR-CE = University of Rwanda, College of Education.

Results indicate that responses on M&E practices were tending to agree on students–staff evaluation (M = 3.25), and evaluation by supervisor (M = 3.34), while disagreeing with staff self-evaluation (M = 2.36) and peer evaluation (M = 1.98). Faculty members rated themselves highest on the statement “I discuss my performance with my head of department” with M = 3.15 and further rated themselves (staff) lowest on the statement “I learn from my fellow lecturers’ comments” with M = 1.91. It is also indicated in Table 1 that staff rated themselves fairly low on the statement “I invite my fellow lecturers to assess my teaching” (M = 1.98) and further, staff rated high the statement “There is individual bias with peer assessment” (M = 3.02). Indeed, the responses on two statements suggest that fellow staff would not critically assess the performance of their colleagues. Further results show that staff rated themselves fairly low in assessing their teaching regularly (M = 2.36). The results suggested that students–staff evaluation and evaluation by the supervisor or head of department (HOD) are significantly applied at UR-CE. Importantly, it was revealed that staff self-evaluation and peer evaluation were not used at satisfying level. All HODs agreed that M&E exercise is conducted periodically as one observed, “at the end of a module, students complete evaluation forms as part of summing up departmental achievement, and at the end of the year performance contract targets are evaluated.”

It was realized that the students–staff evaluation and evaluation by the supervisor or HOD are the most applied. The results are consistent with the conclusion by Chen and Hoshower (2003) that in most universities students’ ratings are more influential. It is worth emphasizing that students are an integral part of the learning process and, as primary consumers, their objective views are more likely to lead to continuous quality improvement initiatives. In equal strength, if students’ feedback from evaluations is driven by faculty, it is likely to be used explicitly for course and personal development (Becket & Brookes, 2006).

Findings indicate also that a few instances of peer evaluation were occurring. One HOD added,

Faculty work in autonomy, we do not ask for daily reports, we move around to observe their attendance in class sessions. We also organize departmental meetings to discuss shortfalls and achievement. (HOD1)

This could be attributed to discomfort that develops among peers as a result of comparison that is likely to display their typical level of performance. There is also a general psychological feeling that peers tend to observe a less biased sample of behavior to project a positive image to their supervisors and by extension their employers. It was further noted that such an evaluation may involve HODs who in most cases assume their role of the supervisor in assisting fellow staff analyze the strong and weak areas noted in the teaching process Greguras, Robie, & Born, 2001). In as much as this should be the norm, findings show that peer evaluation was found to lack emphasis. This is confirmed by the fact that a high number of staff tended to agree that there was individual bias with peer evaluation, implying that a high percentage of faculty members believed peer evaluation was affected by bias. The findings clearly demonstrate a weakness on the side of staff in not willing to engage in peer evaluation as part of their professional development. This can be explained by Greguras et al.’s (2001) observation that interpersonal relationships may cause peers to be too lenient when rating their friends or to not discriminate among friends.

Relationship Between M&E Feedback and Staff Motivation

Performance feedback is often viewed as one of the vital human resource practices (Boswell & Boudreau, 2002). Some organizations used a feedback framework to regulate and enhance a leader’s ability in managing. It is seen as one of the mechanisms, a leader can potentially use to increase employees’ motivation. To further determine the role of feedback as a component of current M&E practices that may lead to staff motivation, correlation was obtained between the perceptions toward quality of feedback (PQF) statements and its motivational impact. PQF is anchored of Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory, which holds that individual differences of employees have an impact on their motivation. As part of the environment, feedback and performance appraisal help shape and influence employee motivation, which ultimately lead to job satisfaction and better outcomes (Gagne’ & Deci, 2005). Systematic feedback on work performance, however, leads to intrinsic motivation and thus better outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Performance feedback and the employee response can also be interpreted using social exchange theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This theory argued that obligations are established through a number of interactions between employee and the supervisor who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. The following six PQFs and five motivational impact of monitoring and evaluation (MIME) statements were used:

Table 2 presents a total of 25 correlations, with 16 significant correlations at the 0.01 level, suggesting a significant relationship between staff motivation and the M&E feedback. Important observations to highlight were that PQF statement “The feedback from performance evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses to improve” had a significant positive relationship with all MIME statements or subscales, ranging from .347 to .631 at the 0.01 level. On the contrary, PQF subscales “There is possibility to improve from the feedback received” and “The feedback from performance evaluation focuses on the job content rather than the person” had a significant negative relationship with all MIME subscales, ranging from –.293 to –.612, at the 0.01 level. For assessing the strength of correlation, Taylor (1990) suggested the following interpretations: correlation coefficients (r) ≤ .35 are generally considered to represent a low or weak correlation, .36 to .67 modest or moderate correlations, and 0.68 to 1 strong or high correlations. Hence, the results suggest a weak to moderate relationship between staff motivation and M&E feedback.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Pearson Correlation Between the Quality of Feedback and Faculty Motivation.

	MIME1	MIME2	MIME3	MIME4	MIME5
PQF1
Pearson correlation	−.116	.017	−.192	−.120	.262**
Significance (two tailed)	.257	.870	.058	.239	.009
PQF2
Pearson correlation	.631**	.584**	.347**	.525**	.555**
Significance (two tailed)	p < .001	p < .001	p < .001	p < .001	p < .001
PQF3
Pearson correlation	−.240	−.182	.308**	.051	.577**
Significance (two tailed)	.017	.072	.002	.620	p < .001
PQF4
Pearson correlation	−.001	−.126	−.191	.045	−.033
Significance (two tailed)	.991	.216	.060	.659	.749
PQF5
Pearson Correlation	−.167	−.293**	−.440**	−.525**	−.302**
Sig. (2-tailed)	.100	.003	p < .001	p < .001	.002
PQF6
Pearson correlation	−.612**	−.512**	−.307**	−.465**	−.174
Significance (two tailed)	p < .001	p < .001	.002	p < .001	.087

Note. MIME = motivational impact of monitoring and evaluation; PQF = perceptions toward quality of feedback.

**

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed).

Majority of those interviewed indicated that quality feedback can affect staff motivation. One respondent said,

Yes, the feedback to some degree can motivate staff even though most people give weight to other things. Therefore, after performance evaluation, there should be some kind of rewards such as certificate of merit because that recognition remains memorable to the staff. (HOD2)

A number of scholars argued that feedback is a good motivator and can actually improve intrinsic motivation, such as rising feel of responsibility, empowerment, and recognition (Danner & Lonky, 1981) and that positive feedback (Deci, 1971) facilitated intrinsic motivation by promoting a sense of competence when people felt responsible for their successful performance. Furthermore, negative feedback, which decreased perceived competence was found to undermine both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation leaving people unmotivated (Gagne’ & Deci, 2005). Studies on this relationship extensively demonstrated a strong positive relationship to job performance (Martinsen, 2013). The overall feedback of performance is a strong factor in employee’s performance review (Levy & Williams, 2004). As a matter of fact, a study on Norwegian context indicated that performance appraisal needs to be followed with perceived regular feedback. This suggests that there is an interactive effect between these two activities (Kuvaas, 2011).

Impact of M&E on Staff Motivation

The Pearson correlation was used to identify the degree of association between applied M&E practices and academic staff motivation. The following table indicates correlations calculated at 0.01 significance level. In the table below MEP stands for monitoring and evaluation practices.

Table 3 shows correlations on MEP, four statements including students–staff evaluation, self-evaluation, peer evaluation, and evaluation by supervisor, and the totals of scores from the MIME five statements or subscales. This creates a total of 20 correlations, with seven significant correlations ranging from 0.268 to 0.4460 at the 0.01 level (including positive and negative correlations), suggesting a significant relationship between staff motivation and the MIME subscales.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Correlation Between MEPs and Faculty Motivation.

	MIME1	MIME2	MIME3	MIME4	MIME5
MEP1
Pearson correlation	−.446**	−.268**	−.033	−.117	.229
Significance (two tailed)	p < .001	.008	.744	.250	.023
MEP2
Pearson correlation	.134	.229	.409**	.492**	.367**
Significance (two tailed)	.190	.023	p < .001	p < .001	p < .001
MEP3
Pearson correlation	.140	.190	.203	.403**	.422**
Significance (two tailed)	.171	.061	.045	.000	.000
MEP4
Pearson correlation	.165	.136	−.028	.043	−.051
Significance (two tailed)	.104	.182	.784	.676	.615

Note. MIME = motivational impact of monitoring and evaluation; PQF = perceptions toward quality of feedback.

**

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed).

The positive correlations were found between MEP subscales “Staff self-evaluation” and “peer evaluation” and MIME subscales, while negative correlations were found between the MEP subscale “Student Staff Evaluation” and the MIME subscales. Only the subscale “Evaluation by the supervisor” had no statistically significant relationship with any statement of MIME. Hence the correlations between M&E subscales and its motivational impact were qualified ranging from weak to modest. These results meant that the M&E practices and the subsequent feedback had the ability to stimulate staff motivation if applied effectively by the supervisors.

It is evident from the findings that performance appraisal is a formalized process of ensuring performance and productivity of the faculty. Without a clear and compulsive performance requirement, academics cannot be administered effectively and will lose much of their motivation to improve work (J. Zhang, 2008). As highlighted by Tozoglu (2006), evaluation has two functions: first as feedback to enhance performance, build new practice, or change existing practice, and second is for decision making in respect to retaining, promotion, hiring, or termination. In addition, J. Zhang (2008) observed that the overall purpose of performance appraisal to university academics is to enhance the general level of performance and to provide basis for the implementation of managerial strategies. Moreover, evaluation enables academics to be reflective practitioners by observing their own practice (Bam, 2005).

Regular and systematic evaluation has been identified as indispensable attributes of effective employees (Itolondo, 2012). Procedures for evaluating academics include self-evaluation, student evaluation of teaching effectiveness, peer evaluation, and evaluation by a faculty committee (Ngware & Ndirangu, 2005). In these procedures, evaluation by immediate supervisors needs to be supported by supplementary data from other sources to avoid bias (Tozoglu, 2006). Consequently, peer evaluation can complement evaluation by supervisors. As explained by Itolondo (2012), peers are more likely than administrators to possess the empathy, understanding, contextual awareness, and knowledge of the subject matter. However, Greguras et al. (2001) observed that peers often develop close relationships among themselves and maybe unwilling to provide accurate ratings.

Bam (2005) argued that self-evaluation is equally significant because it provides careful, informed self-criticism of every aspect of teaching. Rigorous self-evaluation enables lecturers to identify areas for improvement and strengths, which triggers them to set professional development goals. Kambanda (2008) emphasized that multiple ratings are significantly more valid than single ratings because an employee gets feedback from different perspectives. However, Kelly, Ang, Chong, and Hu (2008) observed that problems associated with lack of agreement on appropriate appraisal criteria concerns over the validity and reliability of evaluation methods, and the negative perceptions toward the appraisal system.