The aim of personnel assessment in a business enterprise is to improve the contribution of the employees to production so as to achieve the objectives of the business by helping to improve the employees’ work output, i.e. helping both employers and employees from time to time to determine, review and discuss together the objectives of the business, the expectations according to the assignment, and the progress of the various objectives. The aim of the assessment is also to support and improve the knowledge of the employees, eliminating the various obstacles to their output. Furthermore, the human dynamic constitutes the most important asset in a business, while at the same time occupying a large part of the costs. The success or failure of policies followed by the business with regard to its personnel is inextricably linked to the success or failure of the business itself. Today the crisis and the acuteness of competition which is also bludgeoning Greece makes in necessary for businesses to change and adapt to the new (and unknown) conditions, and treat their human resources as an asset [1].

In recent years an opinion has been formed globally as well as in Greece that the success of an assessment programme is an extremely important element which encourages the development of employees. Of course the assessment system alone should not define the particular objectives and results which each employee must achieve, but it must predict that for each action or task of the employee there are objectives which are set at the start of the assessment period. It is also necessary that output be measured in the in-between stage as well as at the end of the assessment period. This whole procedure can be a motivating for the employees to score better [2]. In general terms, employee satisfaction with personal assessment plays an important role in their long-term efficiency. A negative reaction towards the assessment system may destroy and downgrade the whole personal assessment system, even if it has been drawn up with meticulous attention to every detail and procedure [3]. In the assessment procedure, the perception of it is important, since the efficiency of personnel assessment depends on the perception the employees have of it as regards a series criteria such as its fairness [4]. As a perception we consider a process through which individuals organize and interpret the things that they capture with the senses in order to give meaning to their surroundings. The perception differs from individual to individual given that each person understands it differently. Thus perception may be affected by other factors connected by the nature of the person, such as values, personality, motivation, interests, past experience and expectations. Many studies have revealed that the perception of equality in assessment is an important factor in the efficiency and satisfaction of the assessed personnel Ahmed A good perception of the personnel assessment system will create a positive climate in the work place while a bad perception of it will create problems which will have an impact on efficiency. These perceptions depend on the actions of the assessor and the quality of his/her interactions with his/her subordinates. Many businesses use the personnel assessment procedure as a standard procedure which offers no feedback to the personnel. The problems of a personnel assessment system are varied. For example, often the employees do not respond positively to a personnel assessment system that they consider to be unfair Brown, & Benson. This has negative consequences for the assessment since the reaction of the employees plays a definitive role in the success of the assessment enterprise. State that lack of transparency that gives negative feedback to the whole assessment process, creates problems for the assessment itself [5-6]. Lack of transparency also creates dissatisfaction, even characterizing the whole assessment procedure as useless. Research has been done in Greece which demonstrates the lack of trust that employees have towards various assessment systems. In Greece 90% of state employed workers describe it as excellent, but all complain of the way public services function. From similar studies which have also taken place in Great Britain it seems that 80 % of employees are unhappy with the system of personnel assessment. There is also negativity in the opinion that an assessment system can improve the effectiveness of a task for every employee since only 10 % of employees consider that an assessment system can achieve this. A study that was carried out with around 50.000 individuals working in various business is typical. The study showed that only 13% of managers and 6% of employees think that a management performance system is satisfactory. Sadly all the research ends up with the conclusion that if the employees see the assessment as an unfair they are less likely to use feedback from the assessment as a way of improving their efficiency. Ultimately many of these reactions characterize the efficacy of an assessment system. For example, an assessment system for teachers in Greece applied in 2012 failed because of the reactions of the teachers, characterising it as non-implementable even before it was implemented. For the past 9 years Greece has been under financial supervision by the International Monetary Fund and by European institutions. Civil Service staff assessment is an obligation in all the Memoranda signed after 2010 by “socialist” “conservative” and “left-wing” governments. Despite this, assessment in the public sector essentially has not taken place. A living example is the fact that in the period until August 2015 bill after bill was drawn up none of which ever arrived in Parliament due to elections, reforms and other political developments and, if there was a vote on them, they remained inactive as laws! Consultations between the respective Ministers of Administrative Reform, trade unions, the technical echelons of the troika and others involved, brought about decisions that remained simply imprinted “on paper.” Assessment, however, is an important two-way process between management and staff. It should be linked to the targets set in each department or directorate and should be repeated at regular intervals. Assessment recognises the qualifications of the employees and can then exploit their skills, behaviour and performance, something that has never taken place in Greece except in a few exceptional cases. Someone who is assessed as better should be better remunerated, which never happens in Greece, since all Civil Servants are paid according to a Single Payroll. A necessary prerequisite is the definition of clear standards in accordance with the objectives of the Greek State, contributing in this way to their implementation. Generally speaking the benefits of an assessment are: Employees realise that good performance is recognised and rewarded. There is employee satisfaction because they feel that they are appreciated and their contribution is acknowledged. Furthermore, regular positive feedback from the assessment acts as an incentive and further activates the employees. The self-awareness of the employees, as well as the definition of their boundaries and capabilities, mobilise their interest, which can increase their productivity for the exchange of information and submission of proposals to improve the effectiveness of the business. Facilitates career planning and progress. Problems and complaints are expressed and solutions found. The employees understand what behaviours the business organisation appreciates. Came to a similar conclusion noting that the effectiveness of a personnel assessment system “depends not only on the validity and reliability of the performance assessment measures but also on the reaction of the employees [7-8]. Despite this there are very few studies into the question of how the employees react to assessment. Very often older employees do not respect and try to devalue the results of an assessment. This is a frequent phenomenon all over the world. A research paper from Aleassa. Generally speaking we can say that the application of the assessment generates varied emotions alongside the reasoning of each individual, which ultimately judge the efficiency of the specific assessment system. So, as well as logic the emotions are also involved in the assessment process. [9]. When an assessment becomes accepted by employees then the employee is encouraged to develop those skills which will help him achieve his objectives Lawler. An accepted application of an assessment process helps the organisation in various ways. It also encourages the employees to get motivated by satisfying their ambitions while improving their work Khan. Generally speaking the decision to choose some kind of assessment must be supported by features which render the personnel assessment an up-to-date and efficient process. Through these features the employees consider that in any business might achieve good measures and performance evaluation. These feature validity, reliability comparability and relevance to the position being assessed. For the assessment to have validity it should measure important parameters of a job in a representative way. For example, an assessment measure to determine the productivity of a public official would include his/her performance. If not a measure would be missing, i.e the validity of content would suffer if it did not specify, apart from productivity, factors such acknowledge of legislation, analysis of responsibilities, responsibility, good behaviour towards the public etc. A measurement of performance must avoid features which are unrelated to performance phenomenon and are also called “infection.” If, for example, the performance of a public official also includes an assessment of how well he/she irons a shirt, this measure would lose its validity of structure by this irrelevant comment [10]. The assessment must also have reliability. Generally there is a high level of reliability when two or more assessors agree on an employee’s performance, and low reliability of they disagree. The ideal would be for two assessors to evaluate the same employee in the same way. Finally the results of two evaluations by two different assessors must be comparable to each other. The possibility of this depends in turn on the willingness of the assessor to use or employ the entire field of the grading scale at his/her disposal in the fullest and most effective way. For example, in an assessment interview there are various objective aims such as to the motivate an employee to achieve a superior performance level, to learn the exact level the employee is at and whether or not this is satisfactory, to reward those who present good performance and to inform those who have some kind of problem of their weak points and the need to change the bad aspects, and finally to agree on a reciprocal basis for other future improvement programmes. It is a fact that although many managers consider the above to be important, they do not display similar interest and attention. Indeed their hesitancy is due to knowing that they themselves do not have the necessary skills, or are not suitably prepared to cope with the disputes and doubts of an assessment. So any contact between the employee and the assessor in the early stages of the diagnosis would be a positive thing, to be based on an effective performance assessment that will develop an open dialogue, mutually determining the aims of the assessment and the the commitment of both to be honest with each other so as to reduce any unpleasant reaction during the assessment. Then one can assume that the assessment is valid, reliable, and fair [11]. In the bibliography, job satisfaction can take on various meanings. For example, connected job satisfaction with the organisation of the company. Job satisfaction is connected with motivation but its nature is unknown [12]. It is more of an attitude, an internal situation which predisposes a person to a specific behaviour. For example it can be associated with the concept of success, either quantitative or qualitative. Locke and Wright & Davis define job satisfaction as “the pleasant and positive situation that comes as a result of the job evaluation or the experience of it” Briefly, job satisfaction expresses the degree to which the employee likes the job. Ivancevich and Donnelly 1968 consider that job satisfaction is an employee’s positive perception of his/her role in the task at a given time. For Dawis and Lofquist job satisfaction arises from the link between the incentives provided by the employer and the needs of the employee. Further, Smith, Kendall and Hulin consider that job satisfaction refers to the feelings of the employee towards his/her job [13-14]. Portigal defines satisfaction as “something that becomes felt by a person referring to a specific situation that he/she is currently living.” considers that job satisfaction has an effect also on the “quality” of the work that the employee offers. Job satisfaction has an important, though indirect, effect on productivity [15-16]. For example a happy employee avoids absenting himself/herself from their job, consequently the organisation benefits from lack of absenteeism and their continuous presence in the workplace. In this case job satisfaction expands and comes as a result of improvement in the quality of working life, which has relationship with the improvement of work results Reiney 1997. According to Nye & Witt, in Khan an unhealthy working atmosphere always correlates negatively with the job satisfaction of each employee. On the other hand, assessment satisfaction is the key, and the tool which connects the skills and behaviours of the employees with the strategic objectives of the organisation. In order to play this strategic role, employees must perceive the programme positively and be satisfied with its use Dusterhoff, Cunningham & MacGregor, and Brown & Benson. Dissatisfaction or even disagreement with an assessment programme is linked to workers dissatisfaction which may even lead to their intention to resign. The employees are usually assessed by their direct supervisor. A good series of steps which a researcher should follow according to Ste-O are the following:

• Process planning (determining responsibilities, assessment period, benchmark criteria etc.)
• Control (department managers or someone – some employee who helps, assisting the process of evaluation.
• Activation and support so that employees can contribute to the achievement of the company’s objectives.
• Carrying out the assessment (types, interviews, e.g.)
• Consequences (rewards, skills development, penalties, e.g.).

The above steps include normal and continuous interactions between the employees and the supervisors and have a significant impact on the success of the assessment throughout the enterprise. Several studies are devoted to these reactions Kuvaas Cawley Jawahar even if the role the supervisor plays throughout the assessment process is flawed. Nichols 2007 maintains that assessment takes a lot of time and energy, while its results can create frustration which can undermine teamwork and the climate of trust. Lack of communication, differing standards of assessment, personal prejudices and different values are some of the factors reported by various researchers to explain deviations [17].

The present study was used in such as way as to allow the researchers to collect different elements. The participants in the study were employees who held an administrative post or were potential managers. All of them participated in a seminar on Human Resources organised by the State Training Centre of the South Aegean Region in Greece. A general questionnaire was given to managers and potential managers who were attending this specific seminar. Their participation was voluntary. The certificate from this seminar would result in their receiving some points to enable them to increase their qualification and claim a position later. There were 116 participants. They all agreed to participate in the research even though some of it was optional. Care was taken to ensure secrecy and confidentiality. Data was classified in (Tables 1) (as shown below), while for analysis the EXCEL and SPSS software was used

Table 1: Level of satisfaction the trainees.

Clearly shows that of the 116 participants, the majority, 67%, were men and only 33% of the participants were women. Despite this the proportion of woman participating in the seminar was large, since few countries in the world have achieved the target of 30% female participation in administrative councils, while in Greece the proportion of women in administrative councils is 11% and their representation in leading businessositions amounts to 22%. Figure 1 shows that the majority of the participants were over 40 years old. This is important in Greece since the “brain drain” phenomenon – mass migration – is serious. It is estimated that since the beginning of the Crisis at least 500,000 Greeks have been driven to economic migration. Numbers often lose their meaning if one thinks that this number is the equivalent to the population of four major Greek cities! Those who decide to emigrate belong mainly to the dynamic age group 20-35 years old and possess specialised knowledge which is now lacking in Greece with negative consequences for the effective operation of businesses and in the private and public sectors. To the question “what would you like the role of the assessor to be?” (Figure 2) they were asked to write the basic feature that they would like an assessor to have. The majority considered that the assessment should be “specific.” In a business an assessment could, for example, be about whether its employees can deliver a project at the time foreseen when the job was given. In our case an Urban Planning Department employee maintained that an investigation cannot be left pending and that each time there should be a specific time set for the completion of a job, whatever it might be. Something similar is defined in the existing legislation i.e. any question of a citizen should be answered within a given period time. So the public officials accept speed of processing various projects within the public service also plays an important role in serving the citizens (Figure 3). The personnel manager should come to an agreement that will achieve the objectives to be assessed at the end of a time period and also determine what the supervisor will provide (e.g. resources) to help in this direction. Each assessment should be of a constructive nature. The supervisor or the employee responsible for conducting the assessment should be at the heart of the team. He/she will give directions, will be open and willing to discuss whatever changes are proposed, will make decisions, will assess and be a fair evaluator of the results of the team and of the work produced by each of the assessed members, and be able to give constructive feedback. It is important that he/she has thorough knowledge of the work so as to be able to teach and support the workers in his/her team, but must also listen to them. He/she must also seek new, innovative ways to improve the work- both his/her own and that of the team. As we have said above, the research was carried out after a seminar had taken place. So the next question was whether the seminar they had attended had helped them and if it was really worth Bing attended by the trainees, and also if it was of benefit to the business. I.e. it was not a waste of money for the business/ Greek government, but had rewarding benefits. For the above the Kirkpatrick model was used. This framework is a simplified but reliable methodology for assessing the training of staff [18]. The Kirkpatrick model consists of four different levels of assessment: The “reaction” that is the first level of assessment examines the trainees’ level of satisfaction. It may be understood that this measure can give us valuable information Steele. The second level is “learning.” This assesses the extent to which participants have improved their knowledge, skills and behaviours [19]. 

Figure 1: Ages of the participants in the research.

Figure 2: What is the position of the Assessor during the Assessment.

The third level, “behaviour at work,” assesses whether the trainees consider that the knowledge they have received can be transferred to their workplace [20]. The fourth level of the Kirkpatrick model assesses “results.” This is done by examining the results obtained from participation in the training programme and to what degree there were the projected behaviour changes in the participants [21]. Introduced a fifth level. This level was to assess the “return on investment” (ROI). Each training programme costs some amount of money. The business/ Greek government, therefore wishes to get back the money it had given for the training while, at the same time, wanting the money to have a positive impact on this. Many people, such as Watkins 1998 justifiably maintain that the fifth level (ROI) is part of the fourth level since it refers to the results. Phillips includes it as a fifth level because of the financial interests that such an action would have on the business. Generally speaking the assessment of training is crucial for improving skills through feedback by coming to useful conclusions related to jobs and professions [22-25].

Figure 3: Level of satisfaction the trainees.

Figure 4: How to successfully achieve an assessment.

The next question that we present here is that of the results of the opinions that the participants expressed regarding “how to successfully achieve an assessment” on a scale of values. This question was given to a specific group of individuals we recalled who had already been subject to assessment or who were potential managers (Figure 4) the first requirement for the success of an assessment was that it should be effective [26-27]. This characteristic was a requirement for almost half of the trainees. This is ensures by elements such as validity i.e. to measure important aspects of a job in a representative way, if it’s credible to have objectivity (what has the person done to succeed in their work) and not to refer to aspects of the personality that are not relevant to the job etc. The second requirement is the existence of incentives in an assessment (17.8% of the trainees). The importance of this choice is very great if we consider that those questioned government officials or prospective officials (Figure 5). Its importance becomes even greater if we consider the 3^rd choice which was the link to salaries. In summary the final scale of importance for the elements of a successful assessment have to do with: Objectivity of assessments (47%), b) Incentives (17,8%), c) link with salaries (15,3 %), d) that it should not be merely a bureaucratic procedure (14,3%), e) that there should be feedback (13,9%), f) that a training programme should follow the assessment to cover the deficiencies, needs etc of the workers (9,6%) g) to develop a culture of assessment (9%) that good relations between the parties concerned should not be disrupted by the assessment (19%) [28].

The importance of assessment is recognised by workers in the public sector. For then it is an important function for their feedback and information, it does not just improve their own performance but the performance of the entire organisation. There is however, strong concern about how it would be conducted. It should be effective, with the elements of validity and objectivity, and it should not be punitive but should offer incentives through remuneration and any other incentive such as, for example, promotion so as to encourage better performance from the employee. There is concern among the employees that an assessment might disrupt relationships between them, which is undesirable. Generally speaking systems of assessment in Greece cannot continue to be a process with absolutely no benefit to business. These are important seminars since every business is publicly or privately surviving in conditions of intense competition where the difference is made by its people. The qualifications at the disposal of the employees, the enthusiasm and satisfaction they derive from their work, the feeling that it is fair to assess them all help in the productivity of the business, in customer service and in the reputation of the company itself. The role of the supervisor should not be underestimate where he/she is the assessor’s partner in clearly defining the objectives and then in assessing in the best possible way the most effective performance of the employee. Each action should be timely, specific, constructive and understandable.

1. Dusterhoff C, Cunningham JB, Gregor MJN. The Effects of Performance Rating, Leader-Member Exchange. Perceived Utility and Organizational Justice on Performance Appraisal Satisfaction: Applying a Moral Judgment Perspective. J Bus Ethics. 2014; 119: 265-273.
2. Kuvaas B. The interactive role of performance appraisal reactions and regular feedback. J Managerial Psychol. 2011; 26: 123-137.
3. Aleassa HM. Performance appraisal satisfaction and counterproductive behaviors: direct and moderating effects. Int J Bus Admin. 2014; 5: 76-89.
4. Warokka A, Gallato C, Moorthy T. Organizational Justice in Performance Appraisal System and Work Performance Evidence from an Emerging Market. J Hum Resour Manag Res. 2012; 1-18.
5. Mensah BFO, Seido PA. Employees Perception of Performance Appraisal System A Case Study. Int J Bus Manag. 2012; 7: 73-88.
6. Keeping LM, Levy PE. Performance appraisal reactions measurement modeling and method bias. J Appl Psychol. 2000; 85: 708-712.
7. Nisi DA, Pritchard R. Performance appraisal, Performance management and improving individual performance a motivational framework Management and organization Review. 2006; 2: 253-277.
8. Jawahar IM. The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions. J Labor Res. 2007; 28: 735-754.
9. Cawley BD, Keeping LM, Levy PE. Participation in the performance Appraisal process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of field investigations. J Appl Psychol. 1998; 83: 615-633.
10. Papalexandris N, Bourantas D. Human Resource Manager. Benu publications. 2016.
11. Brown M, Benson J. Managing to overload Work overload and performance appraisal processes. Group & Organization Management. 2005; 30: 99-124.
12. Beer M. Organizational Size and Job Satisfaction. Acad Manag J. 1964; 7: 34-44.
13. Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press. 1984.
14. Smith PC, Kendall LM, Hulin CL. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago Rand McNally. 1969.
15. Locke EA. The Native and Causes of Job Satisfaction in M.D. Dunnett. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1976; 1297-1349.
16. Onge SS, Guerrero S, Haines V, Brown JP. Meeting the challenges of human resources management 4^th Montreal Gaetan Morin Editor Chapter 6. 2013.
17. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995; 20: 709-734.
18. Lin YT, Chen SC, Chuang HT. The effect of organizational commitment on employee reactions to educational training an evaluation using the Kirkpatrick four-level model. Int J Manag. 2011; 28: 926.
19. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating part of a ten-step process. Evaluating Training Programs. 2009; 3-15.
20. Davids R. Transfer of learning: motivation, training design and learning-conducive work. Euro J Training Devel. 2014; 38: 728-744.
21. Phillips JJ. How much is the training worth. Training and Development. 1996; 50: 20-24.
22. White C, Roos V. Core competencies of a call centre agent. J Hum Resour Manag. 2005; 3: 41-47.
23. Ahmed I, Ramzan M, Mohammad SK, Islam T. Relationship between Perceived Fairness in Performance Appraisal and OCB Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment. Int J Acad Res. 2011; 3: 1520.
24. Brown M, Hyatt D, Benson J. Consequences of the performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review. 2010; 39: 375-396.
25. Diamantidis A, Chatzoglou P. Evaluation of formal training programmes in Greek organisations. Euro J Training Devel. 2012; 36: 888-910.
26. Kuvaas B. Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes mediating and moderating roles of motivation. Int J Human Resource Manag. 2006; 17: 504-522.
27. Levy PE, Williams JR. The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J Manag. 2004; 30: 881-905.
28. Phillips JJ. Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs gulf houston. 1997.