Employee Attitudes towards Employee Evaluation Systems in the Utility Sector: A Case Study of Sewage and Water Supply Ltd., Rybnik, Poland

Abstract

Employee evaluations are an extremely important element of human resource management. On the one hand, many studies have confirmed their indispensability, and on the other hand, they have been described as the most controversial elements of management that can lead to many conflict situations in an organization. The present study aimed to assess the attitudes of employees toward employee evaluation systems using the example of PWiK Rybnik (Sewage and Water Supply Rybnik). The municipal sector, and especially water and sewage companies, are characterized by an approach to the provision of services from a natural monopoly perspective. The above situation enforces in the sphere of management certain behaviors towards employees and may affect attitudes towards the employee evaluation system. This study assumed the hypothesis that employee attitudes toward the employee evaluation system are skeptical. A diagnostic survey method with a questionnaire technique was used to verify the hypothesis and answer the formulated research questions. The survey questionnaire consisted of 16 mixed questions, including four to collect anonymous sociodemographic information. The results of the conducted survey were subjected to statistical and descriptive analysis. Based on the analyses performed, it could be concluded that the employees expected constructive feedback from their supervisors, and traditional employee evaluation via a form was often viewed as its negation. Evaluations should also take into account social factors, as people are definitely more motivated and inspired by a constructive conversation than by a form presenting quantitative data.

1. Introduction

The municipal sector and, in particular, water and sewage enterprises are characterized by an approach to the provision of services from a natural monopoly perspective. Water and sewage enterprises in Poland are bound by the act on collective water supply and sewage disposal [1]. For this type of business, the function of the regulator is assumed by the State Water Company, which approves water and sewage tariffs for a period of three years [1]. Such an approach in the field of management enforces certain behaviors towards employees and can influence attitudes regarding the employee evaluation system. Employee evaluation is an important part of human resource management [2,3]. It helps to consciously shape the personnel policy of the organization [4]. When properly conducted, it has a positive impact on the quality of processes, work efficiency, and the performance of the organization, as well as on the motivation and professional development of employees [5,6]. Human resource management under the conditions of a natural monopoly is characterized by certain limitations due to the lack of classic market competition. An analysis of the literature revealed cases wherein employees who were younger and had less seniority were interested in introducing more complex and modern methods of human resource management, as in a commercial market company [7]. In contrast, employees with many years of seniority prefer to maintain the existing rules, which are often based on the Collective Labor Agreements (CLAs) that exist in companies [8]. The aforementioned differences in perceptions of modern and traditional management methods encouraged us to conduct this study and allowed us to formulate the research questions and hypothesis.

This study aimed to assess the attitudes of employees toward employee evaluation systems using the example of PWiK Rybnik. The following research questions were posed:

• What is the attitude of PWiK Rybnik employees toward the employee evaluation system?
• Do the age and gender of PWiK Rybnik employees affect their attitudes toward the employee evaluation system?
• Do the opinions of PWiK Rybnik employees about the likely effects of employee evaluations in their company depend on their qualifications?
• Do the qualifications of PWiK Rybnik employees influence their opinions about the proper shape of their company’s employee evaluation system?
• Do PWiK Rybnik employees’ experiences of the effects of employee evaluations condition their opinions about the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at their company?
• Is there a relationship between the degree of satisfaction of PWiK Rybnik employees regarding the scope of their duties and their attitudes toward the system of employee evaluations?

The study assumed the hypothesis that employee attitudes toward the employee evaluation system are skeptical.

The structure of the rest of the article begins with a literature review, in which the main assumptions of the employee evaluation system are characterized, with particular attention paid to the specifics of municipal enterprises. The subsequent sections present the methodology of the research and its results, including a discussion. The paper ends with a summary of both the cognitive and practical conclusions, as well as the study limitations and opportunities for future research.

2. Literature Review

Many textbooks on management, especially human resource management, address employee evaluation and define its functions, objectives, systems, policies, and procedures. The basic functions are of an evaluative, developmental, informational, and motivational nature. The objectives are usually of a productive–economic, social, and instrumental character [3,9,10,11]. Despite its extensive implementation since the 1920s, the process of employee evaluation is still imperfect for various reasons [12]. However, a growing scientific interest in the issue of employee evaluation has been observed for some time. In the Scopus database, the first studies on the subject date back to 1948, yet in total, the Scopus database contains only 319 documents matching the query “employee evaluation” in their titles, keywords, or abstracts. Although the scholarly interest in this issue is gradually increasing (see Figure 1), it is not as extensive as, for example, the interest in human resource management issues. The Scopus database contains 42,254 publications matching the query “Human Resource Management”. The first indexed article dates back to 1952. Figure 2 presents the interest in this issue for the last 20 years. It is symptomatic that in 2022 there are already 2083 publications on this topic, and for 2023 there are already 8 publications dated. On the topic of “employee evaluation”, there are only seven publications for 2022, and for 2023 there are no publications at all. Such results may come as a surprise, since “employee evaluation” is an integral part of human resources management and, as indicated above, can perform various functions.

The spider diagram (Figure 3) clearly shows the differences in the number of studies devoted to the topics in question. Nominal values are presented in

Table 1. Nominal values for the queries “Human Resource Management” and “employee evaluation” for the last 20 years. Source: own study based on data from Scopus database (accessed on 27 July 2022).

Year	“Human Resource Management”	“Employee Evaluation”
2021	3987	17
2020	3542	19
2019	3379	21
2018	2901	15
2017	2733	11
2016	2633	12
2015	2392	15
2014	2527	7
2013	2245	11
2012	1809	12
2011	1767	13
2010	1475	8
2009	1191	8
2008	1092	9
2007	895	6
2006	730	6
2005	602	6
2004	417	6
2003	453	6
2002	398	2

.

Issues related to “Human Resource Management” are most often addressed in the pages of journals such as (the number of publications available in these journals is shown in brackets): International Journal of Human Resource Management (1076); Lecture Notes in Computer Science, including the subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics (547); Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (502); Human Resource Management International Digest (347); Human Resource Management (339); Personnel Review (334); Employee Relations (277); and Human Resource Management Review (277).

Topics related to the term “employee evaluation” are approached relatively less frequently and are discussed in journals such as: Journal of Marketing (6), Journal of Organizational Behavior (5), Hospitals (4), Journal of Applied Psychology (4), Nursing Management (4), and Public Personnel Management (4). For the query “Human Resource Management” AND “employee evaluation”, the relevant journals include: Human Resource Management (13), Human Resources Management (5), Job Satisfaction (5), Human (3), Humans (3), and Knowledge Management (3).

For the query “Human Resource Management” AND “employee evaluation”, the Scopus database identified only 24 publications. For an analogous query, the Web of Science database identified five documents. For the query “Human Resource Management” AND “employee evaluation”, the Google Scholar database produced 3550 results for the analyzed period from 2002 to 2021. Not all of these publications were directly related to the studied problems. The studies generated from the analyzed databases related to various industries and various aspects of employee evaluations, including those using modern technologies.

In the article “Application of Blockchain Technology in Production Scheduling and Management of Human Resources Competencies”, the authors focus on virtual teams and virtual enterprises by referring to blockchain technology, which facilitates the scheduling of enterprise resources, including human resources. As the authors argue, blockchain technology makes it possible to automate the process of selecting employees to perform specific production tasks. The analysis in the article touched on various blockchain functionalities, including the description of a method for evaluating an employee by taking into account the employee’s work history and individual competencies, including his/her technical skills, such as machine operation and ability to read technical drawings; the difficulty of, level of involvement with, and positions held in tasks and projects performed so far; and courses completed [13]. Interest in blockchain technology has grown significantly in the past few years [14]. It is applied in a variety of industries and processes [15,16,17,18,19], and its use in employee evaluation can greatly accelerate the process and allow for the objective evaluation and re-evaluation of its motivational function. Employee assessments are aimed at developing employee competencies in a changing work environment associated with advances in modern technologies such as Industry 4.0 [20], big data, and employee productivity [21,22]. Many studies highlight the critical issue of human resource management as a strategic component of an organization’s business success [23] and job security [24].

The issue of employee evaluations is often addressed in the context of fairness. Treating and evaluating an employee fairly increases commitment to work, positive perceptions of the employer and co-workers, and positive opinions of the job itself [25]. One component of employee evaluation is job satisfaction [26]. In this case, not only is employee evaluation and self-assessment important, but also the evaluation and self-assessment of managers. These two processes usually differ. Managers are prone to overestimating their managerial abilities, which does not have a good effect on employee satisfaction [27]. Assessments of managerial competence are therefore as important as employee evaluations [28]. The satisfaction of employees, as the main internal stakeholders of the organization, is important because it affects the functioning of the organization [29], and it depends on the organizational culture, ethical values, working conditions, and an appropriate approach to human resource management [30]. The scientific analysis of the topic of employee evaluation has also approached this problem from the perspective of strategic management [31,32]. Important scientific findings have appeared in the context of employee evaluation and motivation [33,34,35,36].

The system of employee evaluation is based on the achievement of three primary functions: the assessment of employee performance (work results), the distribution of the workload, and the determination of the directions of employee development. The scope of the evaluation depends on the employee’s role and involves both current and periodic evaluation. Current evaluation is carried out by the immediate supervisor, whereas periodic evaluation is more formalized and is conducted at specific intervals depending on the employee evaluation systems of specific organizations. The purpose of periodic evaluation is both to determine the effectiveness of the work and to guide the development of the employee. This evaluation should be impartial, objective, and highly professional. According to human resource management specialists, employee evaluation benefits both employees and the organization. In addition to employee evaluation, modern organizations also use employee self-assessment mechanisms [37,38]. The purpose of employee evaluations is to identify and reward good, effective, and conscientious employees and outline directions for improving weak performances. Such an evaluation is a valuable source of information for management. Employee evaluation, in order to properly fulfill its functions, must be conducted according to strictly defined criteria, depending on the specifics of the organization. Recent years have brought a change in the approach to selecting criteria for employee evaluation, focusing on the assessment of competence [39].

Evaluation criteria are usually clustered into four groups: (1) qualifications—education, knowledge, and skills; (2) efficiency—the quantity and quality of work provided, the timeliness of tasks, and economic effects; (3) behavioral criteria—involvement, punctuality, availability, attitude to superiors, attention to stakeholders, and independence in performing tasks; and (4) personality criteria—creativity, responsibility, reliability, and resistance to stress [40]. Companies use different criteria and rely on different concepts and methods of employee evaluation. Methods such as the normal distribution method, pairwise comparison, the evaluation of the performance of specific activities, rating scales [41], and 360 degrees [42] are usually employed. However, each enterprise must carefully plan and prepare its employee evaluation system. Each enterprise also has its own unique business characteristics, climate, and organizational culture, which are relevant to the design and implementation of the employee evaluation. Certainly, the municipal enterprise sector shares the peculiarities described above. No studies in the literature have directly addressed employee evaluation in water and sewage enterprises. There are also no studies on the perception of employee evaluation by employees themselves. These were our main motives for undertaking research in this area.

3. Materials and Methods

This study used a diagnostic survey method with a questionnaire technique. The survey questionnaire consisted of 16 mixed questions, including four to collect anonymous sociodemographic information. The remaining 12 questions were designed to gather employees’ opinions on the possible introduction of an employee evaluation system and information on their experience with such evaluations. The questions were of a closed nature. For three questions, respondents were allowed to indicate a maximum of 3 responses; one question contained seven sub-questions with responses on a 5-point Likert scale; and one was matrix-based, wherein respondents were asked to refer to individual factors by also assigning a score on a 5-point Likert scale. To determine the reliability of the aforementioned questionnaire, the Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient [43] was calculated, resulting in a value of 0.78 (valid reliability).

The questionnaires were collected among employees of Przedsiębiorstwo Wodociągów i Kanalizacji Sp. z o.o. in Rybnik (abbreviated as “PWiK Rybnik”) in May 2021. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. Consent to participate in the study was obtained from the surveyed employees after the purpose and structure of the study had been explained. Respondents were allowed to stop completing the survey and thus cease participating in the study at any time. The survey was conducted among all company employees, except top management. Respondents could be divided into two categories in terms of their job positions. The first included manual positions, such as diggers, water and sewage system installers, special equipment operators, and excavator operators. The second category comprised non-manual positions, including: department managers; specialists; and clerks in different departments (e.g., budgeting and controlling specialists, sales clerks, and technical clerks). Employees’ attitudes toward the employee evaluation system of PWiK Rybnik constituted the main subject of this research. When analyzing the abovementioned attitudes, the focus was on the opinions of the surveyed employees regarding the system of employee evaluation; the most important opinions for our purposes were those related to the need for and appropriate frequency of periodic employee evaluations at the company. An important role in the course of this research was also assigned to opinions on the importance of particular criteria for employee evaluation and the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company. The statistical verification of the information collected in the survey was aimed at determining the attitudes of the surveyed PWiK Rybnik employees towards the employee evaluation system (including their opinions on the proper structure of the employee evaluation system at their company) and the identification of factors of potential importance for the abovementioned attitudes.

The results of the survey were subjected to quantitative and descriptive analysis. Qualitative variables (responses to questions) were described using counts (n) and percentage distribution (%). In addition, for the purpose of examining the relationships between selected variables (i.e., regarding the importance ratings of individual criteria for employee evaluation and the degree of satisfaction with the scope of duties), these variables were recoded into a point rating scale (1–5), and the results—as measurable variables—were presented using the basic parameters of descriptive statistics. The assessment of the consistency of the above quantitative (measurable) variables was carried out using the Shapiro–Wilk test [44]. A comparison of two independent groups in terms of ordinal or quantitative variables was performed using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test. Pearson’s χ² independence test (including the Yates correction) was used to verify the relationship between two qualitative characteristics as expressed by their respective nominal scales [45]. Correlations were examined using Spearman’s rank order method. The calculations in the statistical analysis were performed using the statistical package Statistica v.13.3 PL (Tulsa, OK, USA). A significance level of p < 0.05 was considered to indicate the existence of statistically significant differences or relationships.

A total of 184 PWiK Rybnik employees participated in the study. Basic socio-demographic information describing this research sample, i.e., sex, age, education, and seniority (length of service with the company), is presented below (

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.

		n	%
Sex	Women	54	29.35%
	Men	102	55.43%
	Abstained from responding	28	15.22%
Age	Up to 25 years	6	3.26%
	26–30 years	15	8.15%
	31–40 years	39	21.20%
	41–50 years	50	27.17%
	51–60 years	32	17.39%
	More than 60 years	5	2.72%
	Abstained from responding	37	20.11%
Education	Primary	5	2.72%
	Lower secondary	1	0.54%
	Vocational	50	27.17%
	Secondary	35	19.02%
	Higher	57	30.98%
	Abstained from responding	36	19.57%
Length of service with the company	Less than 3 years	40	21.74%
	3 to 5 years	9	4.89%
	5 to 10 years	10	5.43%
	10 to 15 years	27	14.67%
	15 to 20 years	24	13.04%
	More than 20 years	39	21.20%
	Abstained from responding	35	19.02%

).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Analysis of Overall Results

First, the overall results of the survey were evaluated. In terms of understanding the principles of the periodic employee appraisal system, the surveyed employees were divided, with most people, i.e., one in three (33.70%), declaring that they were rather familiar with the aforementioned principles. One in five (22.83%) were definitely familiar. Respondents were similarly divided in terms of their willingness to participate in an informational meeting on the functioning of the system of periodic employee evaluation, with most (34.78%) expressing such willingness to a moderate degree (“rather yes”).

The opinions of the surveyed employees on the need for a system of periodic employee evaluations at their company were also divided, with the largest proportion having no opinion on the aforementioned topic (27.72%). A slightly smaller percentage of respondents (25.54%) believed that the above system was rather necessary, and 8.15% of the respondents indicated a definite need for the system, but the total share of opposing opinions (i.e., “definitely not” and “rather not”) was higher (19.02% and 19.57%, respectively). In terms of the frequency of periodic employee evaluation, the largest number of respondents (38.04%) were of the opinion that the aforementioned evaluation should not take place at their company at all. Second in terms of number (28.26%) were opinions stating that the frequency of once a year was most appropriate for conducting periodic employee evaluations at the company. In turn, the respondents considered the most important criteria for employee evaluations to be: knowledge and competence (58.70% “definitely yes” responses); skills and professional experience, including significant experience in the field of their specialization (59.24%); and the manner in which the assigned tasks were carried out—e.g., reliability and punctuality (53.80%). The least important criterion in employee evaluation, according to respondents, was education (20.65% of responses “definitely not”).

The surveyed employees viewed pointing out mistakes to employees (53.80%) and mandatory training and/or other forms of qualification improvement (40.76%) as the most important rationale for the introduction of a system of periodic employee evaluation. On the other hand, the probable effects of conducting the aforementioned evaluations at the company, according to the surveyed employees, would be: reducing the emergence of new, innovative ideas (40.22%); becoming the only source of information about the employees and increasing bureaucracy (36.96%); and enabling the possible correction of the methods of work performance (30.98%). According to the surveyed employees, the most desirable methods of improving skills are conferences (69.02%) and coaching or mentoring (49.46%).

The surveyed employees mostly declared a high level of commitment to their work and the company that employed them. This was especially true in terms of knowing their job responsibilities (82.61% “definitely yes” responses), knowing the purpose of their work for the company (75.00%), feeling the importance of their work for the company and its customers (63.04%), and having a clear idea of their supervisor’s expectations for their work (51.63%). The scope of responsibilities was deemed “rather satisfying” for nearly half of the surveyed employees (48.37%). Nearly one in three (29.35%) had no opinion on this issue. In addition, the information collected on the experience of the surveyed employees showed that the majority had received a reward during their employment (77.72%) and had not received a reprimand or other disciplinary sanction (74.46%).

4.2. Influence of Sex and Age of Employees on Their Attitudes toward the Employee Evaluation System

Women and men did not differ significantly in their opinions on the need for a system of periodic employee evaluation at the company. The biggest difference between the two groups was in cases where the respondent had no opinion on the abovementioned topic, which were more common in women (51.85%) compared to men (16.67%). Men were more likely than women to have a defined opinion on the abovementioned topic, with the largest differences between the two groups being in the case of opinions strongly supporting (12.75% and 1.85%, respectively) and strongly opposing (22.55% and 5.56%, respectively) the company’s system of periodic employee evaluation. However, these differences turned out to be statistically insignificant, as determined by the results of the Mann–Whitney U test: Z = 0.31; p = 0.756; r_g = 0.03 (

Table 3. Relationship between respondents’ sex and their opinion on the need for a periodic employee evaluation system in their company.

		Sex				Mann–Whitney U Test	rg of Glass
		Women (n = 54)		Men (n = 102)
		n	%	n	%
Opinion on the need to use a system of periodic employee evaluation at the company	Definitely not	3	5.56%	23	22.55%	Z = 0.31; p = 0.756	0.03
	Rather not	9	16.67%	20	19.61%
	No opinion	28	51.85%	17	16.67%
	Rather yes	13	24.07%	29	28.43%
	Definitely yes	1	1.85%	13	12.75%

).

On the other hand, the age of the respondents was significant for their opinion on the need for a system of periodic employee evaluation at the company. As the analysis using Spearman’s rank order correlation method showed, there was a statistically significant and positive relationship between the abovementioned variables: R = 0.2; t(N − 2 ) = 2.51; p < 0.05. This meant that older employees were more likely to perceive the need for a system of periodic employee evaluation at the company. From the distribution of the aforementioned opinions by age group, it was evident that respondents in the youngest age group (“up to 30 years”) more often considered the use of a system of periodic employee evaluation in the company unnecessary (38.10%) compared to the other groups (from 10.81% in the “more than 50 years” group to 18% in the “41–50 years” group). Furthermore, they less often supported such a system at the ‘‘rather’’ level (9.52%; other groups ranged from 32.43% in the “more than 50 years” group to 36.00% in the “41–50 years” group) and ‘‘definitely’’ level (4.76%; other groups ranged from 10.00% in the “41–50 years” group to 13.51% in the “more than 50 years” group) (

Table 4. Relationship between respondents’ age and their opinion on the need for a periodic employee evaluation system at the company.

		Age								Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation
		Up to 30 Years (n = 21)		31–40 Years (n = 39)		41–50 Years (n = 50)		More than 50 Years (n = 37)
		n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Opinion on the need to use a system of periodic employee evaluation at the company	Definitely not	5	23.81%	9	23.08%	3	6.00%	7	18.92%	R = 0.2; t(N − 2) = 2.51; p < 0.05
	Rather not	8	38.10%	5	12.82%	9	18.00%	4	10.81%
	No opinion	5	23.81%	12	30.77%	15	30.00%	9	24.32%
	Rather yes	2	9.52%	9	23.08%	18	36.00%	12	32.43%
	Definitely yes	1	4.76%	4	10.26%	5	10.00%	5	13.51%

).

The sex of the surveyed employees did not significantly affect their opinion on the appropriate frequency of periodic employee evaluations at the company. Both women and men were divided in their opinions on the abovementioned topic, with women slightly less likely than men to be of the opinion that the evaluations should not be conducted at all (35.29% and 38.38%, respectively) or should be conducted once every six months or more often (25.49% and 27.27%, respectively). On the other hand, women were slightly more likely to indicate the frequency of once a year or less often as appropriate for the abovementioned evaluations (39.22% and 34.34%, respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant, as shown by the analysis using the Mann–Whitney U test: Z = 0.12; p = 0.908; r_g = 0.01.

There was also no significant relationship between the age of the respondents and their opinion on the appropriate frequency of periodic employee evaluations at the company. Admittedly, in the youngest age group (“up to 30 years”), the percentage of those who believed that the abovementioned evaluations should not take place at all was higher (47.62%) than in the other age groups (from 27.08% in the “41–50 years” group to 35.14% in the “more than 50 years” group). The proportions of the abovementioned groups who considered a frequency of once a year or less often as appropriate for employee evaluations ranged from 28.57% (in the “up to 30 years” group) to 43.75% (in the “41–50 years” group), while the proportions of those who favored once every six months or more often ranged from 23.81% (in the “up to 30 years” group) to 31.58% (in the “31–40 years” group). These results indicate that respondents from each age group were relatively divided in their opinions on the aforementioned topic. Based on the results of the Spearman’s rank order correlation analysis, there was no statistically significant relationship between the above variables: R = 0.03; t(N − 2) = 0.39; p = 0.697.

4.3. The Impact of Employees’ Qualifications on Their Opinions about the Likely Effects of Conducting Employee Evaluations at the Company

The respondents’ support of the opinion that a probable effect of conducting employee evaluations at the company would be that they would become the only source of information about the employees and would increase bureaucracy was related to their education level. Respondents who believed that employee evaluations would have the abovementioned effect were better educated (M_rank = 81.01) compared to those with a different opinion on the matter (M_rank = 65.84). The better educated the surveyed employees were, the more often they perceived that the effect of employee evaluations at the company would be that they would become the only source of information about the employees and increase bureaucracy (ranging from 26.00% in the “vocational” group to 47.37% in the “higher” group). At the accepted level of significance, p < 0.05, the effect of the respondents’ education on their support for the abovementioned opinion on the outcomes of conducting employee evaluations at the company was considered statistically significant based on the results of the analysis using the Mann–Whitney U test: Z = 2.13; p < 0.05; r_g = 0.21.

The same analysis showed that the education level of the employees had no significant effect on their opinions about the other likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company. Admittedly, the better educated the respondents were, the more often they perceived that an effect of the abovementioned evaluations would be to enable the possible correction of the methods of work performance (ranging from 24.00% in the “vocational” group to 29.82% in the “higher” group). Employees with a secondary education were more likely than the other groups distinguished by education to believe that conducting employee evaluations at the company would result in encouraging new, innovative ideas (37.14%; other groups: 24.00% in the “vocational” group and 19.30% in the “higher” group), as well as causing excessive employee stress and discouraging work (34.29%; the other groups: 20.00% and 22.81%, respectively). On the other hand, the share of people in the aforementioned groups who agreed that a likely effect of conducting employee evaluations in the company would be a reduction in the emergence of new, innovative ideas ranged from 37.14% (in the “secondary” group) to 47.37% (in the “higher” group). However, opinions on these effects of conducting employee evaluations were not sufficiently different among the abovementioned groups. Thus, the education of the employees surveyed did not have a statistically significant effect on their perceptions of the likely effects of employee evaluations, such as reducing the generation of new, innovative ideas (Z = 0.37, p = 0.711, r_g = 0.04); encouraging new and innovative ideas (Z = −0.61, p = 0.542, r_g = −0.07); causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work (Z = 0.24, p = 0.811, r_g = 0.03); and allowing the possible correction of the methods of work performance (Z = 0.62, p = 0.536, r_g = 0.07) (

Table 5. Relationship between respondents’ education level and their opinions on the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company.

Opinions on the Likely Effects of Conducting Employee Evaluations at the Company		Education						Mann–Whitney U Test	rg of Glass
		Vocational (n = 50)		Secondary (n = 35)		Higher (n = 57)
		n	%	n	%	n	%
Reducing the emergence of new, innovative ideas	Yes	22	44.00%	13	37.14%	27	47.37%	Z = 0.37; p = 0.711	0.04
	No	28	56.00%	22	62.86%	30	52.63%
Encouraging new and innovative ideas	Yes	12	24.00%	13	37.14%	11	19.30%	Z = −0.61; p = 0.542	−0.07
	No	38	76.00%	22	62.86%	46	80.70%
Becoming the only source of employee information and increasing bureaucracy	Yes	13	26.00%	13	37.14%	27	47.37%	Z = 2.13; p < 0.05	0.21
	No	37	74.00%	22	62.86%	30	52.63%
Causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work	Yes	10	20.00%	12	34.29%	13	22.81%	Z = 0.24; p = 0.811	0.03
	No	40	80.00%	23	65.71%	44	77.19%
Enabling the possible correction of the methods of work performance	Yes	12	24.00%	10	28.57%	17	29.82%	Z = 0.62; p = 0.536	0.07
	No	38	76.00%	25	71.43%	40	70.18%

).

The seniority of those surveyed at the company was significant to their support of the opinion that a reduction in the emergence of new, innovative ideas was a likely effect of conducting employee evaluations. Those who believed that conducting employee evaluations at the company would have the abovementioned effect had worked at the company for longer (M_rank = 83.04) compared to those who held the opposite opinion (M_rank = 68.25). The distribution of the results for the aforementioned opinions between the different seniority groups indicated that respondents who had worked at the company for less than 10 years less frequently perceived that an effect of conducting employee evaluations would be a reduction in the emergence of new, innovative ideas (37.50% in the “less than 3 years” group and 26.32% in the “3 to 10 years” group) compared to those who had been employed at the company for a longer time (ranging from 48.15% in the “10 to 15 years” group to 56.41% in the “ more than 20 years” group). These differences reached statistical significance, as determined by the results of the analysis with the Mann–Whitney U test: Z = 2.08; p < 0.05; r_g = 0.2.

Respondents’ opinions on the other likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company were not related to their years of employment (seniority). Admittedly, among those who had worked at the company for 10 to 20 years, the percentage of respondents who agreed with the aforementioned effects of the evaluations becoming the only source of information about the employees and increasing bureaucracy was higher (55.56% in the “10 to 15 years” group and 45.83% in the “15 to 20 years” group) than in the other seniority groups (ranging from 25.64% in the “more than 20 years” group to 37.50% in the “less than 3 years” group). Respondents who had worked at the company for 3 to 15 years were more likely to believe that conducting employee evaluations would allow for possible adjustments to the methods of work performance (36.84% in the “3 to 10 years” group and 37.04% in the “10 to 15 years” group) compared to the other seniority groups (ranging from 20.51% in the “more than 20 years” group to 29.17% in the “15 to 20 years” group). Excessive employee stress and discouragement from work were more often expected as the result of conducting employee evaluations at the company by respondents with a seniority of 3 to 10 years (42.11%) compared to other seniority groups (ranging from 16.67% in the “15 to 20 years” group to 22.50% in the “less than 3 years” group). On the other hand, the proportion of people in the aforementioned groups who expected that an effect of employee evaluations would be encouraging new, innovative ideas ranged from 17.95% (in the “more than 20 years” group) to 30.00% (in the “less than 3 years” group). As the analysis with the Mann–Whitney U test showed, the differences recorded between the various seniority groups in terms of their opinions on the abovementioned probable effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company did not reach statistical significance. This meant that the seniority of the respondents at the company did not significantly affect their perceptions of the effects of employee evaluations, such as encouraging new and innovative ideas (Z = −1.18, p = 0.24, r_g = −0.13); becoming the only source of employee information and increasing bureaucracy (Z = −0.64, p = 0.52, r_g = −0.06); causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work (Z = −0.75, p = 0.451, r_g = −0.09); and allowing the possible correction of the methods of work performance (Z = −0.57, p = 0.568, r_g = −0.06) (

Table 6. Relationship between respondents’ seniority at the company and their opinions on the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations.

Opinions on the Likely Effects of Conducting Employee Evaluations at the Company		Seniority at the Company										Mann–Whitney U Test	rg of Glass
		Less Than 3 Years (n = 40)		3 to 10 Years (n = 19)		10 to 15 Years (n = 27)		15 to 20 Years (n = 24)		More Than 20 Years (n = 39)
		n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Reducing the emergence of new and innovative ideas	Yes	15	37.50%	5	26.32%	13	48.15%	13	54.17%	22	56.41%	Z = 2.08; p < 0.05	0.20
	No	25	62.50%	14	73.68%	14	51.85%	11	45.83%	17	43.59%
Encouraging new and innovative ideas	Yes	12	30.00%	5	26.32%	6	22.22%	6	25.00%	7	17.95%	Z = −1.18; p = 0.24	−0.13
	No	28	70.00%	14	73.68%	21	77.78%	18	75.00%	32	82.05%
Becoming the only source of employee information and increasing bureaucracy	Yes	15	37.50%	5	26.32%	15	55.56%	11	45.83%	10	25.64%	Z = −0.64; p = 0.52	−0.06
	No	25	62.50%	14	73.68%	12	44.44%	13	54.17%	29	74.36%
Causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work	Yes	9	22.50%	8	42.11%	5	18.52%	4	16.67%	8	20.51%	Z = −0.75; p = 0.451	−0.09
	No	31	77.50%	11	57.89%	22	81.48%	20	83.33%	31	79.49%
Enabling the possible correction of the methods of work performance	Yes	10	25.00%	7	36.84%	10	37.04%	7	29.17%	8	20.51%	Z = −0.57; p = 0.568	−0.06
	No	30	75.00%	12	63.16%	17	62.96%	17	70.83%	31	79.49%

).

4.4. The Impact of Employees’ Qualifications on Their Opinions about the Proper Design of Their Company’s Employee Evaluation System

The education of the surveyed employees significantly affected their opinions on the criteria for employee evaluation. Analysis by the Spearman’s rank order correlation method showed that there was a statistically significant and positive relationship between respondents’ qualifications and their opinions on the importance in employee evaluation of criteria such as: education (R = 0.38, t(N − 2) = 4.93, p < 0.001); knowledge and competence (R = 0.39, t(N − 2) = 4.97, p < 0.001); and understanding how to perform assigned tasks (R = 0.38, t(N − 2) = 4.9, p < 0.001). The direction of these correlations indicated that those with better education attributed greater importance to the above criteria, which was confirmed by the distribution of the ratings for the above criteria between the groups distinguished by education. The better educated the surveyed employees were, the greater (on a scale of 1–5) the importance they attributed to the evaluation criteria of education (ranging from M_Vocational = 2.42/SD_Vocational = 1.28 to M_Higher = 3.61/SD_Higher = 1.19); knowledge and skills (from M_Vocational = 3.88/SD_Vocational = 1.17 to M_Higher = 4.79/SD_Higher = 0.41); and the manner in which assigned tasks are carried out (from M_Vocational = 3.88/SD_Vocational = 1.02 to M_Higher = 4.68/SD_Higher = 0.51).

Based on the results of the Spearman’s rank order correlation analysis, it was found that there was no statistically significant relationship between the respondents’ education and their opinions on the importance in employee evaluation of criteria such as skills and work experience (R = 0.15, t(N − 2) = 1.83, p < 0.07); cooperation with superiors (R = 0.14, t(N − 2) = 1.7, p < 0.092); personal qualities appropriate to the position (R = 0.13, t(N − 2) = 1.6, p = 0.111); work motivation (R = 0.08, t(N − 2) = 0.92, p = 0.36); punctuality (R = −0.05, t(N − 2) = −0.65, p = 0.517); communicativeness (R = 0.04, t(N − 2) = 0.44, p = 0.661); availability (R = −0.01, t(N − 2) = −0.15, p = 0.877); and readiness to improve skills (R = 0.11, t(N − 2) = 1.36, p = 0.175) (Appendix A).

No significant relationship was observed between the seniority of the surveyed employees at the company and their opinions on the importance of each criterion for employee evaluation. In each seniority group, the ratings (on a scale of 1–5) of the importance of education in the context of employee evaluation ranged from M_{Less than 3 years} = 2.6/SD_{Less than 3 years} = 1.26 to M_{3 to 10 years} = 3.47/SD_{3 to 10 years} = 1.5. As the analysis using the Spearman’s rank order correlation method showed, the seniority of the respondents at the company did not statistically significantly affect their opinions on the importance of the above criteria for employee evaluation. This was true for opinions on the importance of education (R = −0.01, t(N − 2) = −0.08, p = 0.933); knowledge and competencies (R = 0, t(N − 2) = −0.03, p = 0.973); skills and work experience (R = 0.12, t(N − 2) = 1.46, p = 0.147); the manner of performing assigned tasks (R = −0.11, t(N − 2) = −1.35, p = 0.181); cooperation with superiors (R = −0.01, t(N − 2) = −0.18, p = 0.86); personal qualities relevant to the position (R = 0.06, t(N − 2) = 0.78, p = 0.436); work motivation (R = −0.04, t(N − 2) = −0.46, p = 0.647); punctuality (R = 0.02, t(N − 2) = 0.24, p = 0.809); communicativeness (R = 0.06, t(N − 2) = 0.7, p = 0.486); availability (R = 0.01, t(N − 2) = 0.13, p = 0.896); and readiness to improve skills (R = −0.09, t(N − 2) = −1.1, p = 0.272) (Appendix B).

There was also no significant relationship between the education of the employees surveyed and their opinion on the appropriate frequency of periodic employee evaluations at the company. Admittedly, the better educated the respondents were, the more often they considered a frequency of once a year or less often to be appropriate for the abovementioned periodic evaluations, with a lower percentage of such opinions among those with vocational education (27.66%) than in the other groups distinguished by education (41.18% in the “secondary” group and 48.21% in the “higher” group). Respondents with higher education were more often of the opinion that the aforementioned employee evaluations should not be organized at all (26.79%) compared to the other groups (38.30% in the “vocational” group and 41.18% in the “secondary” group). On the other hand, the share of those in the aforementioned groups who suggested a frequency of “once every six months or more often” ranged from 17.65% (in the “secondary” group) to 34.04% (in the “ vocational” group). As shown by the Spearman’s rank order correlation analysis, the relationship between the above variables did not reach statistical significance: R = 0.03; t(N − 2) = 0.33; p = 0.744.

The respondents’ opinions on the appropriate frequency of conducting specific employee evaluations at the company also did not depend on their seniority at the company. In the group of respondents with a seniority of 3–10 years, the percentage of those believing that the aforementioned employee evaluations should not take place at all was higher (68.42%) than in the other seniority groups (ranging from 20.83% in the “15 to 20 years” group to 37.84% in the “more than 20 years” group). Support for a frequency of “once a year or less often” as appropriate for the abovementioned employee evaluations was less often provided by the “3 to 10 years” and “more than 20 years” seniority groups (15.79% and 32.43%, respectively) compared to the other groups (ranging from 41.67% in the “15 to 20 years” group to 46.15% in the “10 to 15 years” group), while respondents who had worked at the company for 3 to 15 years less often considered the frequency of “once every six months or more often” as appropriate (15.79% in the “3 to 10 years” group and 19.23% in the “10 to 15 years” group) compared to the other seniority groups (ranging from 29.73% in the “more than 20 years” group to 37.50% in the “15 to 20 years” group). However, the differences found were not significant. The analysis using the Spearman’s rank order correlation method showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between the seniority of the respondents at the company and their opinions on the appropriate frequency of periodic employee evaluations at the company: R = 0.02; t(N − 2) = 0.29; p = 0.776.

4.5. The Impact of Employees’ Experiences with the Effects of Employee Evaluations on Their Opinions about the Likely Effects of Conducting Employee Evaluations at the Company

In terms of their opinions on the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company, no significant differences were observed between the respondents who had received awards during their employment and those who had not. In the former group compared to the latter group, there was a higher proportion of those who expected the effects of the evaluations to include encouraging new, innovative ideas (23.78% and 11.76%, respectively); becoming the only source of information about the employee and increasing bureaucracy (37.06% and 35.29%, respectively); and allowing for the possible correction of the methods of work performance (32.17% and 26.47%, respectively). The opposite was true for opinions supporting the effects of employee evaluations such as reducing the generation of new, innovative ideas (40.56% and 41.18%, respectively) and causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work (22.38% and 32.35%, respectively). However, the differences noted were not significant. Based on the results of the analysis with Pearson’s χ² test, it was found that there was a statistically significant relationship between the respondents’ receipt of rewards during their employment and their opinions on the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at their company, such as reducing the generation of new, innovative ideas (χ²(1) = 0, p = 0.948, C = 0.005); encouraging new, innovative ideas (χ²(1) = 1.69, p = 0.193, C = 0.11); becoming the only source of employee information and increasing bureaucracy (χ²(1) = 0.04, p = 0.848, C = 0.014); causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work (χ²(1) = 1.49, p = 0.223, C = 0.091); and allowing for possible adjustments to the methods of work performance (χ²(1) = 0.42, p = 0.519, C = 0.048) (

Table 7. Relationship between respondents’ receipt of an award during their employment relationship and their opinions about the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company.

Opinions on the Likely Effects of Conducting Employee Evaluations at the Company		Receipt of an Award during the Employment Relationship				Test χ2	Contingency Coeff.
		Yes (n = 143)		No (n = 34)
		n	%	n	%
Reducing the emergence of new, innovative ideas	Yes	58	40.56%	14	41.18%	χ2(1) = 0; p = 0.948	0.005
	No	85	59.44%	20	58.82%
Encouraging new and innovative ideas	Yes	34	23.78%	4	11.76%	χ2(1) = 1.69; p = 0.193	0.114
	No	109	76.22%	30	88.24%
Becoming the only source of employee information and increasing bureaucracy	Yes	53	37.06%	12	35.29%	χ2(1) = 0.04; p = 0.848	0.014
	No	90	62.94%	22	64.71%
Causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work	Yes	32	22.38%	11	32.35%	χ2(1) = 1.49; p = 0.223	0.091
	No	111	77.62%	23	67.65%
Enabling the possible correction of the methods of work performance	Yes	46	32.17%	9	26.47%	χ2(1) = 0.42; p = 0.519	0.048
	No	97	67.83%	25	73.53%

).

The receipt of a reprimand or other disciplinary penalty by the surveyed employees during their employment affected their expectations that the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company would include them becoming the only source of information about the employees and increasing bureaucracy. Respondents who had ever received a reprimand or other disciplinary penalty indicated the abovementioned effect of employee evaluations less frequently (21.05%) than those who had not received a reprimand or other disciplinary penalty during their employment relationship (39.42%). This difference was found to be statistically significant, as determined by the results of analysis with Pearson’s χ² test: χ²(1) = 4.39; p < 0.05; C = 0.156.

Respondents’ opinions on the other probable effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company were not dependent on their receipt of a reprimand or other disciplinary penalty during their employment. The effect of reducing the emergence of new, innovative ideas was expected by almost as many people in the group of those who had received a reprimand or a disciplinary penalty (39.47%) as in the group of respondents who had no experience of reprimands or disciplinary penalties (40.88%). In the former group, the effect of encouraging new and innovative ideas was indicated slightly less frequently than in the latter group (18.42% and 23.36%, respectively); however, the effect of causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work was expected more often in the former group (34.21% and 21.90%, respectively), as was the possibility of correcting the methods of work performance (39.47% and 27.74%, respectively). However, as the analysis by Pearson’s χ² test showed, the differences between the two groups did not reach statistical significance in terms of opinions on the effects of: reducing the emergence of new, innovative ideas (χ²(1) = 0.02, p = 0.876, C = 0.012); encouraging new, innovative ideas (χ²(1) = 0.42, p = 0.518, C = 0.049); causing excessive employee stress and discouraging work (χ²(1) = 2.43, p = 0.119, C = 0.117); and allowing for possible adjustments in the methods of work performance (χ²(1) = 1.94, p = 0.164, C = 0.105) (

Table 8. Relationship between respondents’ receipt of a reprimand or other disciplinary penalty during their employment and their opinions about the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company.

Opinions on the Likely Effects of Conducting Employee Evaluations at the Company		Receipt of a Reprimand or Other Disciplinary Penalty during Employment				Test χ2	Contingency Coeff.
		Yes (n = 38)		No (n = 137)
		n	%	n	%
Reducing the emergence of new, innovative ideas	Yes	15	39.47%	56	40.88%	χ2(1) = 0.02; p = 0.876	0.012
	No	23	60.53%	81	59.12%
Encouraging new and innovative ideas	Yes	7	18.42%	32	23.36%	χ2(1) = 0.42; p = 0.518	0.049
	No	31	81.58%	105	76.64%
Becoming the only source of employee information and increasing bureaucracy	Yes	8	21.05%	54	39.42%	χ2(1) = 4.39; p < 0.05	0.156
	No	30	78.95%	83	60.58%
Causing excessive stress to the employee and discouraging work	Yes	13	34.21%	30	21.90%	χ2(1) = 2.43; p = 0.119	0.117
	No	25	65.79%	107	78.10%
Enabling the possible correction of the methods of work performance	Yes	15	39.47%	38	27.74%	χ2(1) = 1.94; p = 0.164	0.105
	No	23	60.53%	99	72.26%

).

4.6. Relationship between Employees’ Satisfaction with Their Responsibilities and Their Attitudes toward the Employee Evaluation System

The degree of satisfaction of the surveyed employees with their responsibilities significantly depended on their opinions regarding the need for a system of periodic employee evaluations in the company. The Spearman’s rank order correlation analysis showed that the relationship between the above variables was positive and statistically significant: R = 0.18; t(N − 2) = 2.42; p < 0.05. This meant that a greater level of satisfaction with the scope of an employee’s responsibilities was accompanied by opinions more strongly favoring the necessity of periodic employee evaluations at the company. In the group of respondents who believed that the abovementioned system of periodic employee evaluations was definitely necessary, the level of satisfaction (on a scale of 1–5) with the scope of their responsibilities was higher (M = 4.6; SD = 0.63) than in the other groups distinguished by opinions on the need for the abovementioned system at the company (ranging from M_{No opinion} = 3.57/SD_{No opinion} = 0.73 to M_{Rather yes} = 3.77/SD_{Rather yes} = 0.84) (

Table 9. Relationship between respondents’ satisfaction with their responsibilities and their opinions on the need for a periodic employee evaluation system at the company.

Opinion on the Need for a System of Periodic Employee Evaluation at the Company	Descriptive Statistics—Degree of Satisfaction with the Scope of Duties						Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation
	Mean ± Stand. Deviation	Median (Q25–Q75)	Min.–Max.	Confidence Interval		Stand. Error
				−95.00%	+95.00%
Definitely not (n = 35)	3.6 ± 1.01	4 (3–4)	1–5	3.25	3.95	0.17	R = 0.18; t(N − 2) = 2.42; p < 0.05
Rather not (n = 36)	3.75 ± 0.77	4 (3.5–4)	1–5	3.49	4.01	0.13
No opinion (n = 51)	3.57 ± 0.73	4 (3–4)	2–5	3.36	3.77	0.10
Rather yes (n = 47)	3.77 ± 0.84	4 (3–4)	1–5	3.52	4.01	0.12
Definitely yes (n = 15)	4.6 ± 0.63	5 (4–5)	3–5	4.25	4.95	0.16

, Figure 4).

On the other hand, the opinions of the surveyed employees on the appropriate frequency of periodic employee evaluations at the company depended significantly on their degree of satisfaction with the scope of their duties. Admittedly, the higher the appropriate frequency of evaluations suggested by the respondents, the higher their degree of satisfaction with their responsibilities (ranging from M_{Not at all} = 3.69/SD_{Not at all} = 0.84 to M_{Once in six months or more often} = 3.9/SD_{Once in six months or more often} = 0.98). However, at the accepted level of significance p < 0.05, no statistically significant relationship between the above variables was found, based on the results of the Spearman’s rank order correlation analysis: R = 0.11; t(N − 2) = 1.42; p = 0.157 (

Table 10. Relationship between respondents’ satisfaction with the scope of their duties and their opinions on the appropriate frequency of periodic employee evaluations at the company.

Opinion on the Appropriate Frequency of Periodic Employee Evaluations at the Company	Descriptive Statistics—Degree of Satisfaction with the Scope of Duties						Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation
	Mean ± Stand. Deviation.	Median (Q25–Q75)	Min.–Max.	Confidence Interval		Stand. Error
				–95.00%	+95.00%
None at all (n = 70)	3.69 ± 0.84	4 (3–4)	1–5	3.48	3.89	0.10	R = 0.11; t(N − 2) = 1.42; p = 0.157
Annually or less frequently (n = 64)	3.75 ± 0.8	4 (3–4)	2–5	3.55	3.95	0.10
Once in six months or more often (n = 42)	3.9 ± 0.98	4 (3–5)	1–5	3.60	4.21	0.15

, Figure 5).

5. Conclusions

On the basis of the survey, we extracted cognitive and practical conclusions that could provide guidance for human resources management in utility companies in Poland.

The attitude of PWiK Rybnik employees toward the employee evaluation system was skeptical. Although employees were divided in their opinions, they generally considered the aforementioned system to be unnecessary. Most respondents believed that the system of employee evaluations should not be carried out at all, and if it were carried out, then at most once a year. According to the PWiK Rybnik employees, the introduction of a system of employee evaluations would mainly be an excuse to point out their mistakes, and the effects of this system would most likely be to limit the emergence of new, innovative ideas. Regarding the functioning of an employee evaluation system, the most important evaluation criteria according to the employees included: knowledge and competencies, skills and professional experience, and the way in which the assigned tasks are carried out.

The age of the PWiK Rybnik employees partially influenced their attitudes toward the employee evaluation system. Older employees perceived to a greater extent the need for a system of periodic employee evaluations in the company, while the opinions of employees on the appropriate frequency of the abovementioned evaluations did not depend on their age. The gender of the PWiK Rybnik employees had no effect on their attitudes toward the employee evaluation system.

The PWiK Rybnik employees’ experiences of the effects of employee evaluations hardly affected their opinions on the likely effects of conducting employee evaluations at the company. The effect of the evaluations becoming the only source of information about employees and increasing bureaucracy was significantly more often expected by those who had received a reprimand or other disciplinary penalty during their employment. The receipt of an award did not affect opinions on the possible effects of employee evaluations.

There was a partial relationship between the degree of satisfaction of PWiK Rybnik employees with the scope of their duties and their attitudes toward the employee evaluation system. Greater satisfaction with the scope of an employee’s duties was associated with the perception of a greater need for an employee evaluation system. At the same time, opinions on the appropriate frequency of periodic employee evaluations were not related to satisfaction with the scope of duties.

In conclusion, it can be said that employees expect constructive feedback from their supervisors, and traditional employee evaluations conducted via a form are often its negation. It is important to answer the question of not only why the evaluation is carried out, but also what is being evaluated. Appraisals should also take into account social factors, since people are far more motivated and inspired by a constructive conversation than by a form presenting quantitative data.

This study was limited in terms of the selected research sample of a water and sewage utility company in Poland. However, the system of employee evaluation is a sensitive issue in any enterprise, especially one with the characteristics of a natural monopoly. With the above conclusions in mind, it is worth considering the continuation of this study across the entire municipal sector, which would make it possible to compare the results obtained.