Performance management involves identifying strengths and weaknesses of employees in their performance as it sets work standards measure actual progress and gives feedback to employee regarding its productivity. Productivity on the other hand, defines it as output of goods and services per unit of resources used in the production process and with respect to performance appraisal. Aswathappa (2005) perceives it as the assessment of an individual’s performance and that it is always measured against such factors as job knowledge quality and quantity of output initiative leadership abilities supervision dependability cooperation judgement versatility health and the likes. Productivity is an integral part of the public service delivery mechanism and is a process by which an organization can assess whether or not it is delivering the appropriate services according to its mission and objectives ( Xavier, 2014 ). Productivity in terms of organizational efficiency and effectiveness is referred under the quality Model of productivity. Organizational productivity pulls together into themes a wide range of productivity measures and concepts and from this, it can be seen that the concept of productivity continues to evolve to address contemporary issues facing organizations ( Alman, 2010 ). Organizational productivity is linked to ways of improving productivity through the systems upon which they rely. In improving organisational productivity there are a wide range of system based on improvement methodologies that can be drawn on that to cover productivity improvement.

Performance management emphasizes on the organizational performance employees departments and to some extent the processes that are usually employed to build a service or product as well as other key areas in an organization that would lead to employee productivity ( Homayounizadpanah & Baqerrkord, 2012 ). The major problem of evaluating the work performance of the government bodies around the world has been to determine the performance criteria in relation to the objective set by their agencies ( Van de Walle & Bouckaert, 2003 ). Performance management is a process of conception and adopting motivational strategies interventions and drivers with an objective to transform the raw potential of human resource into performance ( Kandula, 2007 ). However, performance management must consist of two basic components one is talent exploitation and preservation and second is performance feedback mechanism ( Vance, 2006 ).

In Burundi despite early efforts to establish reforms towards good performance management system for increased productivity, less progress was achieved. In the early 1990s, several laws and decrees confirmed government efforts to move on with the reforms agenda. For instance, the structural adjustment program from 1986 to 1995 in Burundi. In a dynamic and turbulent environment where social economic and political problems mount; the demands of society increase faster than the capacity of available resources to implement projects and programs. Therefore, the organization is called upon to adopt appropriate mechanisms to cope with these concerns. The main concerns that must be addressed include poverty, citizen’s complaints, poor service and son. Apart from those issues, we include the lack of accountability, transparency and use of corruption and bribery. In order to solve these problems, the key determinant of performance is employee engagement ( Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009 ). Better performance is known to lead to satisfied beneficiaries and similarly to more trust or a positive attitude and acceptance towards government. At the same time, better government agency performance summed up and result to better government performance ( Van de Walle & Bouckaert, 2003 ).

According to Money and London (2010) , the designing of performance management process to foster employee engagement will lead to higher levels of performance. Performance management is important for an organization as it helps to ensuring that employees are working hard to contribute to achieving the organization’s mission and objectives.

The National Institute for Social Security is a public corporation aimed at providing workers’ compensation to cover wage-loss and medical benefits of employees. Along with this mission, the corporation offers medical treatment for temporary and total disability and provides death benefits to the employee’s dependents. The purpose of the study was to evaluate how performance management system have been implemented in National Institute for Social Security and investigate if it resulted to the increased productivity. The content scope was limited to the performance management and productivity field. The analysis focuses on their effects on the organization. The research provided insights to the government local public agencies and provided an understanding of the effectiveness of the current performance management system at INSS with criteria for measuring productivity. The findings of this study recommendations could serve as a reference for policy makers in performance policy management and productivity while inspiring other researchers. National Institute for Social Security could find useful recommendations made in improving their performance management systems.

Over the past quarter century there has been a vast collection of scholarly literature on performance management. It includes detailed case studies ( Barber, 2007 ; Kelman & Friedman, 2009 ; Propper et al., 2010) and analyses of specific policies in particular countries ( Hondeghem & Perry, 2009 ) broad international comparisons ( Bouckaert & Halligan, 2008 ; Polit & Beck, 2014 ) and overall theories on how performance management works (or doesn’t) ( Boyne, 2010 ; Moynihan, 2008 ; Talbot, 2010 ).

Among scholars, there is a wide consensus that performance management remains a core element of modern public management. Lining with that idea, the United Nations for Development Program ( UNDP, 2009 ) report opined that sub Saharan African countries have embarked on some reforms in public administration. In Burundi, despite early efforts to establish reforms towards good performance management system for increased productivity, less progress was achieved. In the early 1990s several programs, laws and decrees confirmed government efforts to move on with the reforms agenda. For instance, the structural adjustment program from 1986 to 1995 in Burundi. The Arusha Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in Burundi which was signed in Arusha on 28 August 2000. The agreement stated among reforms, that there must be an establishment of a new socio political, economic, cultural and judicial order in Burundi (Protocol I chapter II article 5). Within the same framework, the values of justice, the rule of law, democracy and good governance was recommended as fundamental reforms for a productive country. Apart from that, the 2005 Constitution laid the foundation for an ambitious reforms program as national priorities. Later on, the Law No. 1/018 of 08 December 2016 on the Ratification by the Republic of Burundi of the African Charter on the Values and Principles of Decentralization Local Governance and Local Development come to reinforce the place of performance management in Burundian public administration. Among other initiatives, there’s an ongoing implementation of National program for public administration reforms adopted in (April 25th 2012. The program seeks to improve the quality of services offered to citizens.

Following that reform, Burundian government introduced the performance management policy in public sector in 2012. Well-functioning public services are said to bring citizens to trust government ( Van de Walle & Bouckaert, 2003 ). As a post conflict country, Burundi experienced a dynamic and turbulent environment where social, economic and political problems mounted and the demands of society increase faster than the capacity of available resources to implement projects and programs. To cope with those issues, the country was called upon to adopt those mechanisms to address many concerns among others citizen’s access to public services and poor public services. the lack of accountability, transparency and use of corruption and bribery in order to be serviced. In order to solve these problems, the key determinant of performance is employee engagement ( Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009 ). Better performance is known to lead to satisfied beneficiaries and similarly to more trust or a positive attitude and acceptance towards government. At the same time better government agency performance summed up and result to better government performance ( Van de Walle & Bouckaert, 2003 ). According to Money and London (2010) , the designing of performance management process to foster employee engagement will lead to higher levels of performance. Performance management is important for an organization as it helps to ensuring that employees are working hard to contribute to achieving the organization’s mission and objectives. Similarly, performance management sets expectations for employee performance and motivates employees to work hard in ways expected by the organization. Moreover, performance management system provides a completed tool to assess organizational and employees’ performance ( Macky, 2004 ). When the delivery of services is constrained or becomes ineffective the quality of life of the people and nation’s development process are affected ( AAPAM, 2005 ).

The establishment of performance management systems is regarded as a means of getting results from individuals, teams and the organization at large within a given framework of planned goals, objectives and standards. It allows for the setting of targets and the development of indicators against which performance can be later measured.

Performance area has attracted many scholars in Burundi. Osunsan, Florence, Augustine, Abiria, & Innocent (2019) worked on the Effect of Organizational Change on Employee Performance among selected Commercial Banks in Bujumbura Burundi. They were interested in determing the effect of structural change on employee performance in Commercial Banks in Bujumbura and the effect of technological change on employee performance. They concentrated on private entities while this study is conducted on National Institute for Social Security which is a public corporation.

Bitama, Lebailly, Ndimanya, & Burny (2020) worked on Socioeconomic Constraints to Tea Productivity taking Tea Farmers in Burundi as. The article identifies and discusses the socio-economic factors that constrain the productivity of the tea bush of the small-scale tea farmers who supply most of the green leaves to the state-owned factories in Burundi. Subirako (2011) , in his research on Participatory management by political deployees in state owned companies: a case study of Regides Burundi examined the extent to which REGIDESO employees participate in the decision-making within their organization bodies. Last not least, Rudasingwa, Soeters, & Bossuyt (2014) worked on the effect of performance-based financial incentives on improving health care provision in Burundi: a controlled cohort study. The study design was a prospective experimental study which differs from my research method and area of study. Therefore, it seems that the aspect of performance management and productivity has not been fully tackled in Burundi so far to correlate performance management with organizational productivity. The study therefore assessed and identified this gap and embarked on the impact of performance management on employees’ productivity at the National Institute for Social Security.

This research has been carried out by applying both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. The targeted population under this study was 160 employees at junior, middle and top level management from INSS. The study used stratified sampling which is a random sampling method of dividing the population into various subgroups or strata and drawing a random sample from each. The different management levels chosen in INSS have common characteristics to ensure that all categories of respondents are represented.

The targeted population is 160 employees and the sample size was then obtained by using Slovene’s formula

$n=\frac{N}{1+N{\left(e\right)}^2}$

n is the sample size, (N) is the population size that is 160 employees of National Institute for Social Security and (e) represent the error tolerance. That is confidence level of 95% which will give you a margin of error of 0.05.

e: denotes the allowed probability of committing an error in selecting a small representative of the population

The population size is:

$\begin{array}{l}n=\frac{160}{1+160{\left(0.05\right)}^2}\\ n=14\end{array}$

The sample size for each strata is represented in Table 1 :

The primary data was sourced from questionnaires elaborated in accordance to the objective of this study. The secondary data for this study was sourced from dissertations journals and conference papers, text books and Internet materials. In order to analyze the data quantitatively Statistic Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. Descriptive Statistics Correlation and Multiple-Regression Analyses were carried out. To ensure the validity of the instrument, the research used the expert judgment method. That is the one that seeks to minimize any biases and sources of ambiguity in the process of collecting expert data, and which ensures that the process is as transparent as possible to ensure what it is designed to measure. It must be clear, relevant, specific and logically arranged. The Content Validity Index (CVI) is an instrument proposed by Lynn (1986) , Polit and Beck (2006) and is used to rate each instrument item in terms of its relevancy to the construct on a point scale by using following rating point scales: irrelevant; relevant; and extremely relevant. As noted by Lynn (1986) , researchers compute two types of CVIs in rating. The first type involves the content validity of individual items and the second involves the content validity of the overall scale. The Content Validity Index (CVI) in our study resulted in the below results.

$\text{CVI}=\frac{\text{Number of the question declared valid}}{\text{total number of questions}}$

$\text{CVI}=\frac{82}{114}=0.72$

If the Content Validity index is found greater equal or greater than 0.70 thereby the instrument is declared valid. The number of the questions declared valid were 82 and the total number of questions were 114. According to the above formula the content validity is (0.72) which is greater than 0.70 and thereby the instrument is valid.

This section deals with data presentation, analysis and discussion of findings as obtained from the field. The demographic features of the respondents in the study included the Age group; gender and the level of education. The mentioned features play great influence in term of organizational productivity. The results of the analysis are presented using tables to completely analyze the objectives stated in the model. Furthermore, the questions identified in the first section are analyzed using tools as identified in the research methodology. Reliability and Validity tested by using reliability statistics revealed the following results ( Table 2 ):

Source: SPSS results.

The overall reliability analysis was measured by using SPSS. The calculated Cronbach Alpha value 0.867 for 44 items imply that existing questions already in use are the reliable measurement scales for examining the performance management system in National Institute for Social Security. With respect to highest academic qualification the majority of respondents (39%) had University degree indicating that respondents are relatively qualified.

Highest academic qualification and experience in service play a great role in organizational productivity as supported by Kumar & Giri (2009) . In their study conducted research in India, the findings showed that experienced employees were more satisfied with reference job satisfaction and organizational commitment but on the other side less experienced employees were less satisfied According to Lewis (1991) . Most organizations use education as an indicator of a person’s skill level or productivity ( Benson, Finegold, & Mohrman, 2004 ). Karami et al. (2008) suggested that human resource intellectual competence decides competitive advantage of the organization.

Concerning experience in service the majority of respondents (53.7%) had worked for (0 - 10) years and occupied middle management position (45.1%). The modern studies indicate that the performance of the individuals will gradually deteriorate or improve with age depending upon their work ( Warr, 1994 ).

To test the effect of performance management on productivity in National Institute for Social Security, we used 12 qualitative questions in which respondents were required to indicate to which extent they agree or disagree. All the twelve items on performance management were coded scaled using 5 points raging between 1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree and 5 = strongly disagree.

Their responses were analyzed and described using means as summarized in Table 3 below.

Source: Results from SPSS.

The table of mean range is the output of SPSS that shows the basic features of the variables used in a study in form of Mean. It showed that in the first specific objective the results in terms of effect of performance management on productivity is generally low and this is indicated by the overall average mean (2.01). This low mean resulted from the fact that employees’ behavior is no inspiring confidence in customer and the do not care to the understanding of the specific needs that increase customer satisfaction. In addition, we include the lack of improvement of the responsiveness of the beneficiaries, lack of performance management positive influences on the degree of transparency and accountability. Beside that the employees are not capacitated to increase the productivity. Finally, the level of correlation between performance management and productivity was tested as reported in Table 4 to determine the degree of association between the two related variables.

Source: SPSS results.

Table 4 showed that performance management and productivity are positively correlated (r = 0.35) and significant (p = 0.001) leading to a conclusion that performance management does affect productivity in National Institute for Social Security at 5% level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis which stated that there is no significant relationship between the performance management and the productivity in the National Institute for Social Security is rejected at 5% level of significance. On the other hand, the regression analysis on the effect of performance management and productivity was used as reported by Fischer’s F-statistic below.

^aIndependent variable: Performance management; ^bDependent variable: productivity.

Based on the results obtained from the regression as reported by Fischer’s F-statistic the performance management is significant in explaining the variation in productivity. From the results shown in Table 5 F statistic of ((1, 80) = 4.021, p-value < 0.05), we concluded that the null hypothesis which stated that there is no significant relationship between the performance management and the productivity in the National Institute for Social Security is rejected at 5% level of significance.

P value is used to indicate a probability that you calculate after a given study. If the p-value is less than 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis.

The findings indicated that the effect of performance management on productivity is generally low and were indicated by the average mean of (2.01). We concluded that the performance management in National Institute for Social Security has very little effect on the productivity. In regard to the effect of performance appraisal on productivity it is generally high with the overall average mean (3.44). We concluded that the performance appraisal has great effect on productivity and needs to be reinforced. Muanya (2014) supports our conclusion when revealed that an unbiased employee performance appraisal process has positive and strong correlation with employee job satisfaction and enhanced performance. The study concluded that the level of productivity revealed positive indicators. The findings showed also a positive and significant relationship between performance management and productivity at correlation coefficient (r = 0.35) and significant (p = 001) leading to a conclusion that performance management affect productivity in National Institute for Social Security at 5% level of significance. The study concluded that effective performance management is likely to optimize productivity in the organization. Since performance management is a new strategy adopted in Burundi we recommended the capacity building or refresher courses to all public officers at all levels on performance management for effective implementation and cascading of performance management to lower levels. Training increases the productivity of organizations ( Oguntimehin, 2001 ). Employee training has been found to contribute to their performance effectiveness and productivity of organizations ( Ameeq & Hanif, 2013 ; Singh & Mohanty, 2012 ; Kum et al., 2014 ; Colombo & Stanca, 2008 ). The employee competencies change through effective training programmes. Accordingly it not only enhances the knowledge skills and attitude of the individual to perform effectively on their current and future jobs it also contributes to superior organizational performances which give organizations competitive edge over others and thus enhances their productivity and level of profitability ( Wright & Geroy, 2010 ).

The study also recommended that performance appraisal should not be limited to annually but should be quartly or monthly so as to detect weakness as soon as possible. It is through the effective employee performance appraisal process that management can identify performance gap, training needs, whom to reward and so on. Schaufeli and Salanova (2008) note that it is necessary to monitor the engagement development appraisal periodically and potentially readjust goals and resources. The engagement appraisal should accompany the performance appraisal and be used by managers to discuss the importance of engagement behaviors with employees and how the employee can exhibit such behaviors (e.g., role expansion, proactivity, persistence, and adaptability). The effective performance management feedback should be used by the organization to attain the set objectives and goals communicate and discuss employee performance for enhanced productivity. Performance feedback should be reinforced to serve as a crucial element that enhances the performance of individual employees in the areas of weakness. Employee feedback mechanism helps employees to know their strengths and weaknesses. Management should also strengthen the mechanism to make the employees perform at their best abilities at all times. Nwachukwu et al. (2010) supports it by stressing that adequate employee performance will be improved upon if they (employees) receive direct feedback about what their supervisors think about them, and how their contributions to the organization are viewed.