Public Performance Evaluation and Management Methods for Youth Employees in Nigeria

Authors

  • Martnani Kriss Kentos Department of Public Administration and Youth Development, University of Lagos (UNILAG), Lagos, Nigeria Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64229/8t74a776

Keywords:

Adolescent Employees, Performance Evaluation, Public Sector Management, Nigeria, Mentorship, Recognition Culture, Performance Management

Abstract

This study examines the performance evaluation mechanisms and management operational strategies for adolescent employees within Nigeria's public sector context. Combining quantitative survey data from 350 adolescent employees across five Nigerian states with qualitative insights from 15 public sector managers, the research provides a comprehensive analysis of current evaluation practices and their effectiveness. The findings reveal that adolescent employees exhibit significantly lower performance scores (M=2.89, SD=0.71) compared to adult employees (M=3.45, SD=0.63) in areas of accountability and policy implementation. However, structured mentorship programs and culturally adapted recognition strategies demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in performance outcomes (p<0.01). The study identifies key challenges including inadequate evaluation frameworks, limited training opportunities, and socio-cultural barriers unique to the Nigerian context. Based on these findings, we propose an integrated management model that combines standardized performance metrics, culturally responsive recognition practices, and progressive capacity-building initiatives. This research contributes to the theoretical understanding of intergenerational public administration and offers practical implications for optimizing adolescent workforce management in developing economies.

References

[1](2023), Celebrating 83 Years. Public Admin Rev, 83: 459-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13642

[2](2024), Issue Information. J. Manage. Stud., 61:. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12945

[3]Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Chiu MM. Igniting and resolving content disagreements during team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis of team dynamics at work. J Organ Behav. 2018; 39: 1142-1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2256

[4]Burge, J., & Burge, T. (2023). Shape, perspective, and what is and is not perceived: Comment on Morales, Bax, and Firestone (2020). Psychological Review, 130(4), 1125-1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000363

[5]Uttermark, Matthew J., Lauren A. Dula, Francesca Bové, and Kamryn Scott. 2024. “ Contact and Control: Engagement and Influence among Women of Color State Agency Heads.” Public Administration Review 84(2): 308-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13689

[6]Foster, M.E. (2023), Women's Voices in Digital Media: The Sonic Screen from Film to Memes. Jennifer O'Meara. U of Texas P, 2022. 272 pp. $24.00 paper . J Pop Cult, 56: 398-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpcu.13245

[7]Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 533-552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533

[8]Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1565-1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010

[9]Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 533-552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533

[10]Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x

[11]Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 49-68. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785500

[12]Bell, S. T., & Marentette, B. J. (2011). Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizational teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611405876

[13]Chen, G., Chiu, M. M., & Wang, Z. (2012). Social metacognition and the creation of correct, new ideas: A statistical discourse analysis of online mathematics discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 868-880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.006

[14]Chiu, M. M. (2008b). Flowing toward correct contributions during groups' mathematics problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 415-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802224830

[15]Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). A new method for analyzing sequential processes dynamic multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 600-631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405279309

[16]Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 506-523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.506

[17]De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277795

[18]De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191

Downloads

Published

2025-12-01

Issue

Section

Articles