This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The interactive role of performance appraisal reactions and regular feedback
˚ rd Kuvaas Ba
Department of Leadership and Organization Management, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the relationship between performance appraisal (PA) reactions and employee outcomes in terms of affective organizational commitment and work performance. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents the results of a cross-sectional survey of 803 employees from three organizations located in Norway. The survey was conducted in 2005. Findings – The ﬁndings reveal that perceived helpfulness of PA was directly related to affective commitment. The relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance was signiﬁcant only for employees reporting high levels of perceived regular feedback. Research limitations/implications – The two most important limitations, which are discussed in more detail at the end of the paper, are the cross-sectional nature of the study and the reliance on self-reported questionnaire data. Practical implications – The positive relationship between PA reactions and affective organizational commitment highlights the importance of positive PA reactions. At the same time, the relationship between PA reactions and work performance was moderated by regular feedback, which suggests that formal PA cannot compensate for low levels of regular feedback. Implication for further research – Future studies could apply longitudinal research designs and supervisor- or peer-ratings of work performance. Originality/value – The ﬁnding of a positive relationship between PA reactions and work performance only for employees who experience that they receive high levels of regular or day-to-day feedback. Keywords Performance appraisal, Job satisfaction, Norway Paper type Research paper
Performance appraisal reactions 123
Received October 2009 Revised January 2010 February 2010 Accepted February 2010
In recent years there has been an increased emphasis on user reactions to performance appraisal (PA) (e.g. Jawahar, 2007). This research interest originates from the observation that reactions to appraisal and the appraisal process seem to signiﬁcantly impact on the overall effectiveness of appraisal systems (Levy and Williams, 2004). Murphy and Cleveland (1995) argued that “reactions are almost always relevant, and an unfavourable reactions may doom the most carefully constructed appraisal system” (p. 314). Still, despite the rhetoric of PA and its impact on commitment and work performance, these relationships are mostly assumed rather than tested, and Levy and Williams (2004) called for more ﬁeld research on the relationship between PA reactions, employee attitudes and behavior. Accordingly, the ﬁrst purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between PA reactions and affective organizational commitment and work performance.
Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 26 No. 2, 2011 pp. 123-137 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/02683941111102164
... Goal-setting and feedback are key PA activities that are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley et al. without specifying what is meant by “properly conducted”. 2007).JMP 26. 1990. 1998). Ilgen et al. Kluger and DeNisi. Kavanagh et al. Levy and Williams. 2001).. Keeping and Levy. Kleingeld et al. 2007.. goal-setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in . 2000). Kuvaas (2007) found a positive relationship between perceptions of developmental feedback and goal-setting in PA and performance only for employees with a weak autonomy orientation. On the one hand. Kuvaas. Fletcher. 1996). understandable. he reported a positive relationship between PA satisfaction and work performance only for employees with high levels of intrinsic motivation. Theory and hypotheses The most frequently measured reaction in PA research has been some form of PA satisfaction or acceptance (Keeping and Levy. 1998.. Fletcher. On the other hand. high levels of regular feedback may decrease the effect of PA reactions on work performance because necessary performance feedback is already provided on a day-to day and more informal basis. 1979. In the present study.. it is possible that high levels of perceived regular feedback will increase the effect of positive reactions to PA because it enables more individually tailored PA. I investigate whether perceived day-to-day or regular feedback inﬂuences the relationship between PA reactions and work performance. And. In contrast with such a mechanistic view of PA as a “management tool” that is assumed to work as long as one follows the instruction manual. deﬁned as the extent to which employees’ perceive the feedback and goal-setting information involved in PA as informative. relevant. Neubert. Jawahar. Similarly. 1998) and an important purpose of goal-setting and feedback is to increase individual performance.. accurate. Goal-setting and feedback are key PA activities in organizations (Earley et al. 2001). this type of research is likely to yield results of practical relevance (Fletcher. 2002. 1985. the outcomes of PA may depend heavily on individual psychological or contextual factors (Fletcher. 2001. 2004. A direct relationship between PA reactions and employee outcomes Both practitioners and scholars often argue “that properly conducted performance appraisals can provide numerous positive organizational results” (Pettijohn et al. 2000. 2001. the view that it is the reactions to appraisal and the appraisal process that impact on the overall effectiveness of appraisal systems seems to dominate the research community (Cawley et al. and recognizing. Kuvaas (2006a) responded to this call and reported a positive relationship between PA reactions and affective organizational commitment. Klein and Snell. 1990. 2006a. In another study. Neubert. More speciﬁcally. Meta-analyses suggest that the overall effect of feedback is positive. 2007.2 124 In addition. 2007.. although the relationship between feedback intervention and performance is a complex one (Guzzo et al. since investigations of individual differences that may inﬂuence the relationship between PA reactions and work performance can identify conditions under which PA is more or less effective. Youngcourt et al. but he also found that the relationship between PA reactions and work performance was moderated by employees’ intrinsic motivation. 2004. 1994). I investigate perceived helpfulness of PA. In the present study.
2007) moderates the relationship between PA reactions and work performance. In this study. There is a positive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance. PA has the capacity to illuminate how an individual employee’s behaviour can contribute to group and organizational goals. empirical research suggests that employees’ intrinsic motivation (Kuvaas. Furthermore. a relationship between PA and affective commitment to the organization rests on the assumption that employees perceive that PA is able to clarify how their work is related to group and organizational goals or that PA helps communicate organizational strategies. but we should expect a positive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and affective organizational commitment: H2. Furthermore. goals and vision. The potential moderating role of regular feedback Klein and Snell (1994) argued that there is “no best way” to conduct an appraisal interview. Fletcher (2002) claimed that the notion that all appraisees are going to react the same way to appraisal is probably very unsafe. if employees perceive that they get frequent and continuous Performance appraisal reactions 125 .g. we may expect that employees who perceive that PA is useful in terms of goal-setting and feedback also will perform well: H1.organizational science (Neubert. goals and vision. It depends on the situation. 1998). The perception of developmental feedback and goal-setting in PA probably reﬂects employees’ feeling that PA has assisted in communicating super ordinate strategies. which in turn should increase affective organizational commitment. Kuvaas. 2006a). I suggest that perceived frequency of regular day-to-day work-related feedback outside formal PA activities may moderate the relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance. and thereby increase affective organizational commitment (Kuvaas. 2006a) suggest that there is a direct relationship between PA reactions and organizational commitment. (1979) suggested that individual differences probably play a substantial role in how people interpret appraisal feedback and how they respond to these interpretations. Since the studies reviewed by Levy and Williams (2004) and later studies (e. I investigate whether employee perception of day-to-day feedback play a similar role. and Ilgen et al. Levy and Williams (2004) refer to the feedback environment of an organization as a proximal variable that is an integral part of the broader performance management process. even though the relationship between goal-setting and performance is moderated by several factors (Locke and Latham. I limit the discussion of moderating effects to work performance. 309). and argue that factors such as perceived source credibility. Here. Accordingly. 2006a) and autonomy orientation (Kuvaas. There is a positive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and affective organizational commitment. Latham (2003) argued that the affective and emotional aspects of super ordinate goals may capture the “hearts” of employees and give “people a cause they can rally around” (p. frequency and quality feedback should affect appraisees’ attitudes and behaviors. simply having taken part in PA should not be sufﬁcient to increase affective organizational commitment. Accordingly. Still. 2002). Consistent with these arguments. First. the relationship of the parties involved and their individual make-up.
with an overall response rate of approximately 44 per cent. Furthermore. Approximately 2. of whom 1. they may to a greater extent use the limited time available in formal PA activities to ask for more speciﬁc and value-added relevant goal and feedback information. Approximately 16 per cent of the respondents had some form of managerial responsibility. in organizations with a high number of employees compared to the number of managers. PA can be tailored to the needs of individual employees and be limited to issues that are not dealt with on a regular basis.JMP 26. one government department and one organization in the pharmaceutical industry. and approximately 54 per cent were women and approximately 46 per cent men. The relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance is moderated by regular feedback such that there will be a positive relationship only for employees reporting high levels of regular feedback. I hypothesize: H3a.013 returned complete responses during the spring 2005. if employees perceive low levels of regular feedback. 210 respondents (approximately 21 per cent) reported that they had not taken part in PA during the last 12 months and were therefore omitted from the analyses. PA may provide both the time and space needed for the effective exchange of feedback and information between managers and employees. to the extent that high levels of perceived regular feedback reﬂect that appraisers will have more and better information about individual appraisees. A questionnaire was distributed to all employees in the government department and the pharmaceutical organization. and to employees with sales or back ofﬁce positions in the bank. The response rate varied from 42 per cent in the government department to 47 per cent in the bank. To put it differently. The average age of the respondents was 42 years. it will be practically difﬁcult for the individual manager to provide feedback to his or her employees on a more regular basis. for instance in terms of getting performance-relevant feedback. they may put extra effort into taking advantage of the opportunities provided by formal PA. In such case. Similarly. one bank. About 59 per cent of the respondents had an undergraduate degree or higher education.280 employees received the questionnaire by e-mail. the performance implications of perceived helpfulness of PA may be stronger for employees who experiences low levels of regular feedback because PA then can compensate for lack of performance relevant information on a more regular basis: H3b. a busy work environment could make it very difﬁcult for managers to provide day-to-day feedback for all employees. high levels of perceived regular feedback may also decrease the effect of PA reactions on work performance because necessary performance feedback is already provided on a day-to-day and more informal basis.2 feedback on how they do their job. Then. Furthermore. Method Sample and procedure Respondents were drawn from three Norwegian organizations. . 126 Alternatively. In contrast. the value-added of formal PA would be limited. The relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance is moderated by regular feedback such that there will be a positive relationship only for employees reporting low levels of regular feedback. Accordingly.
1992. Since Kuvaas (2006a.” Four items addressed employees’ perceptions of clarity. Sample items are “I have a greater need than most people to make decisions based on the basis of my own independent thinking” and “I am more independent than most other people. 2004). 2007). 2002) and previously used by Kuvaas (2006b. The ﬁve items used to measure perceived regular feedback were developed for this study and addressed day-to-day feedback outside formal feedback systems such as PA. as well as understanding of organizations’ vision. May et al. Perceived regular feedback. relevance and understanding of the feedback received in PA. these were included as controls. except for formal feedback systems such as PA” and “I receive frequent and continuous feedback on how I do my job”.86. and since employees with managerial responsibility may themselves have acted as appraisers. recognition. Perceived helpfulness of PA. 2004) that was used by Kuvaas (2007) (coefﬁcient alpha was 0.Measures Unless otherwise noted. education level and managerial responsibility were also included as control variables.” Autonomy orientation was measured by four items from a validated Norwegian scale (Martinsen. Work performance was measured by six items based on prior work (Brockner et al. Meyer et al.75.” Affective organizational commitment was measured by six of the items reported in Meyer and Allan (1997). gender.. such as “The feedback I receive through PA agrees with what I have actually achieved” and “The feedback I receive through PA provides clear and direct information about my standing in relation to the goals of my department. Sample items are “PA helps me understand what is expected from me in such a way that I can contribute to organizational effectiveness” and “PA provides clear goals I can direct attention to.85 and 0.. The ten items used to measure employees’ perceived helpfulness of PA were based on the instrument used by Kuvaas (2007). strategy and goals. all items were on a ﬁve-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 2007). Accordingly. Performance appraisal reactions 127 . Sample items are “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own” and “I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization” (reversed). Work performance and affective organizational commitment. Sample items are “I often expend extra effort in carrying out my job” and “The quality of my work is top-notch.” In the study by Kuvaas (2007). Intrinsic motivation was assessed by the six items that were used by Kuvaas (2006b.g. The scale correlated positively with affective organizational commitment (r ¼ 0:23) and intrinsic motivation (r ¼ 0:37).74 and 0.79) and four items developed for this study.93. who reported a coefﬁcient alphas of 0. Six items addressed employees’ perceptions of clarity and relevance of goal-setting. they could have different perceptions of PA from those of employees without such responsibility (e. gender and education level may be associated with affective commitment (e. Wright.. Sample items include “I rarely get feedback. Control variables. all the items loaded on a single factor and coefﬁcient alpha for the scale was 0.g. who reported a coefﬁcient alphas of 0. Sample items include “My job is so interesting that it is a motivation in itself” and “My job is meaningful. age.” Age. 2007) found that intrinsic motivation and autonomy orientation moderated the relationship between PA reactions and work performance. 2002).
p .10 (Hair et al. however. H2 was supported. Accordingly. p . i. Table II shows that perceived helpfulness of PA is positively related to affective organizational commitment both before (b ¼ 0:20. which is far from the common cut-off threshold value of 0. Therefore. 1983).. Multiple regression analysis was used to test H1 and H2. suggest that the scale is discriminantly valid and internally consistent. Pairwise and multiple variable collinearity were inspected by collinearity diagnostics in SPSS prior to analysis. 2003). The facts that all of the items used to measure perceived helpfulness of PA loaded on the same component. 2004).2 128 Analyses The data were analyzed in several phases.e. 0:05). 0:001) perceived regular feedback is included in the model. Although most of the scales have been used in prior research. and the nonsigniﬁcant interaction term indicates that this relationship is not moderated by perceived regular feedback. The plot display in Figure 1 reveals a positive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance only for high levels of perceived regular feedback. First. 2004). that no of the items cross-loaded on other components.g. the principal component analysis revealed that all items fell within the inclusion criteria (see Appendix.50 or higher (Osborne and Costello. and in order to avoid confounded measures of the closely-related constructs. Interaction terms often create multicollinearity problems because of their correlations with main effects. 0:001) and after (b ¼ 0:13.93.JMP 26. The lowest tolerance value was 0. factor analysis (principal component analysis with promax rotation) was performed on all multiple scale items to determine item retention (e. Coyle-Shapiro et al. a cross-loading of less than 0. The eight items used to measure autonomy orientation loaded on three separate components.. p . and a coefﬁcient alpha of 0. p . bivariate correlations and coefﬁcient alpha indicating scale reliabilities are reported in Table I. 1994).35 (Kifﬁn-Petersen and Cordery. the measure of perceived regular feedback has not been tested for discriminant validity against the other scales. The signiﬁcant interaction term (b ¼ 0:11. Results Except from autonomy orientation. To test the moderation hypotheses I used hierarchical moderated regression (Cohen and Cohen. providing initial support for H2. standard deviations. and the component with the three items producing the highest reliability estimate was used to compute the autonomy orientation scale. 0:001). Table III shows that perceived helpfulness of PA is signiﬁcantly related to work performance (b ¼ 0:08. The slope for high . Means. I followed the procedure recommended by Aiken and West (1991) and plotted low versus high scores on perceived developmental feedback and goal-setting in PA and perceived regular feedback (one standard deviation below and above the means) and calculated simple slope tests to determine whether the slopes were signiﬁcantly different from each other and from zero. retention of items only with a strong loading of 0. To probe the form of the interaction in order to test H3a and H3b. and a differential of 0. 1998).. suggest that this relationship is moderated by perceived regular feedback. I thus computed the interaction terms by centering the variables before multiplying them with each other.20 or higher between factors (Van Dyne et al.72. Table AI). relatively stringent rules-of-thumb were applied.
12 13.39 * * * 0.15 * * * * * * * * * 2 0.10 * * 0.07 0.18 * * * 0.47 1. * * p .50 0.03 2 0.Variable 0.29 2 0.08 * 0.39 * * * – 2 0.05 2 0. 11.001.13 * * * 0.14 * * * * * * * * * 0. 2.28 * * * (0.32 * * * 0.23 * * * Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Managerial responsibility: No ¼ “1” and Yes ¼ “2” Performance appraisal reactions 129 Table I.40 42.05 0.15 * * * 0.48 * * * (0.85) Notes: n ¼ 803.09 * * * * * * * 2 0.95 0.37 0.88 0. * * * p .55 * * * 0.87) * * * * * * * * * 2 0. 9.17 * * * 0.20 0.49 2 0.11 * * 0.04 0.16 * * * 0.19 * * * 0.50 – 0. and scale reliabilities .42 2 0.09 * 2 0.39 0. Descriptive statistics.12 * * 0.05 0.00 – 0.20 * * * 0.05 2 0.95 2 0.13 * * * 0.74 0.26 3. 5.40 * * * 0.83 * * * 10.55 0.11 * * 0.33 * * * (0.48 3. correlations.15 * * * 0.93) 2 0.49 3.19 3.06 0.14 * * * – 2 0.09 * 0.02 0.89) 2 0. Sex: Woman ¼ “1” and Man ¼ “2”.05.15 * * * (0.84) 0.10 * * 2 0.13 * * * 0.32 0.24 0.48 * * * 0.06 0.48 3.25 * * * 0.04 0.15 * * * 0. 7.18 0.16 * * * 0.09 0.81) * * * 2 0. * p .36 * * * 0.06 0.22 * * * – 2 0.16 * * * (0.83 0.09 * 0.04 0.30 0.30 * * * 0. 10. 6.11 * * 0.51 0. 0.13 0.19 * * * 0.82 0.04 2 0.84 1.01.03 (0.26 * * * 2 0.02 0.34 3. PHPA ¼ Perceived helpfulness of PA.92 – 2 0.37 * * * 0.28 0.19 3. 4.12 * * 0.13 * * * 0. 0.11 * * 0.06 0.03 2 0. Organization 1 Organization 2 Organization 3 Age Sex Managerial responsibility Education PHPA PRFB Intrinsic motivation Autonomy orientation Affective commitment Work performance – 2 0. PRFB ¼ Perceived regular feedback.15 0. 0. 3. 8.41 * * * 0.
Discussion Ultimately.05 0.01.05.07 * 0. Regression results testing the moderating role of perceived regular feedback on work performance 0.400 * * * 0.2 Variables Organization 1 Organization 2 Age Sex Managerial responsibility Education Intrinsic motivation Autonomy orientation PHPA PRFB PHPA £ PRFB DR 2 Total R 2 F Step 1 0.03 2 0. Accordingly.JMP 26.. p . Youngcourt et al.000 0.01 2 0.08 * 0.01 2 0.04 0.04 * * * Step 3 0.11 * * * 0. Sex: Woman ¼ ‘1’ and Man ¼ “2”. * * * p .328 43.52 * * * 2 0. *p .44 * * * 2 0.07 2 0.20 * * * 0. * *p .15 * * * 0.21 * * * 0. 0. suggests that the performance .71 * * * Step 4 0.339 36. 0:001. 0.04 0.12 * * * 0. Regression results testing the relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and affective organizational commitment 0.01 0.31 * * * 0. the organizational level (DeNisi and Gonzales.28 * * * Step 3 0.04 0.08 0.19 * * * 0.05 0.09 * 0. 0:001).62 * * * Notes: aStandardized regression coefﬁcients are shown.033 * * * 0. n ¼ 803.18 * * * 0. PRFB ¼ Perceived regular feedback.03 0.31 * * * 0.05 0. 2007). H3a was supported.05 2 0.18 * * * 2 0.05 0.05 2 0.03 2 0. * p .13 * * * 0.11 * * 0.94 * * * Table III.19 * * * 0.04 0.10 * * * 0.400 66.08 * 0.20 * * * 0.31 * * * 0.05 2 0. 0.12 * * 0.000 0.324 * * * 0. 0:001.01. Managerial responsibility: No ¼ ‘1’ and Yes ¼ ‘2’ levels of perceived regular feedback is signiﬁcantly different form zero (t ¼ 4:03.17 * * * 2 0. Sex: Woman ¼ ‘1’ and Man ¼ ‘2’.04 0. Managerial responsibility: No ¼ “1” and Yes ¼ “2” Variables Organization 1 Organization 2 Age Sex Managerial responsibility Education Intrinsic motivation Autonomy orientation PHPA PRFB PHPA £ PRFB DR 2 Total R 2 F Step 1 0. The key ﬁnding from this study.33 * * * 0.328 38.324 47. whereas H3b was not.17 * * * 2 0.12 * * * 0.16 * * * 0.20 * * * 0.09 * * 0.07 * 0.19 * * * 2 0. * * * p .011 * * * 0. * * p .31 * * * 0.04 0.13 * * * 0. p .46 * * * 2 0.444 57.444 63.05 *0.00 0.01 2 0.48 * * * 130 Table II. 0:001) and the two slopes are signiﬁcantly different from each other (t ¼ 3:42.09 * 0.433 67. subsequently.00 2 0.44 * * * 2 0. PRFB ¼ Perceived regular feedback.004 * 0.03 2 0.12 * * * 0.11 * * * Step 2 0.15 * * * 0.32 * * * 0.11 * * * 0. PHPA ¼ Perceived helpfulness of PA.05. 2000. PHPA ¼ Perceived helpfulness of PA.05 2 0.21 * * * 0.03 * * * Notes: aStandardized regression coefﬁcients are shown. n ¼ 803. 0.18 * * * 0.00 0.011 0.06 0.30 * * * Step 4 0. a central goal of PA is to increase performance at the individual and. however.07 * 0.31 * * * Step 2 0.30 * * * 0.
2006a. even though perceived regular feedback is unrelated to work performance. for instance. there was a positive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance only for employees who perceived that they received high levels of regular feedback. and Whiting and Kline (2007) recently presented a person-environment ﬁt approach to PA. Perhaps a certain level of interaction between managers and subordinates beyond formal appraisal activities may be needed for appraisers to be able successfully to tailor PA to the needs of individual appraisees? Many organizations. the ﬁndings of this study indicate that positive PA reactions need to accompanied by high levels of perceived regular feedback in order to be positively related to work performance.Performance appraisal reactions 131 Figure 1.. use standardized formats consisting of detailed manuals of how appraisers should conduct PA and how to perform standardized PA. (1992) also warned against conducting PA in a mechanical or “cookbook” fashion. The moderating role of perceived regular feedback on the relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance implications of PA are uncertain and complex. Standardized approaches may be chosen for several different purposes. at least in Norway. Accordingly. but the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and autonomy orientation (Kuvaas. Second. This particular ﬁnding highlights the . First. Folger et al. where they found a positive relationship between person-performance appraisal congruency and both turnover intention and organizational commitment. 2007). it may represent a necessary condition for PA to result in increased work performance. perceived helpfulness of PA was only weakly related to work performance. perceived helpfulness of PA was positively related to affective organizational commitment in the current study. 2007) strengthen the argument that a “one-size-ﬁts-all” strategy will probably not increase employee performance. to gather information and document personnel decisions (Youngcourt et al. Although some managers and employees may view formal PA as a way to compensate for low levels of regular day-to-day interaction between managers and subordinates. Consistent with the observation that satisfaction with PA is associated with employee commitment.
g. Most PA research is conducted in the USA. 2008a.S. In conclusion. Accordingly. On the more positive side. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. by employment of relatively stringent rules-of-thumb for item retention. and there is a chance that prior performance and positive evaluations have inﬂuenced both perceived helpfulness of PA and current work performance. Still. . Finally. future studies should preferably use both self-report and supervisor or peer measures of work performance or investigate work settings where objective performance measures are both available and representative of work performance. Besides. Crampton and Wagner. Whereas performance ratings by supervisors help rule out the validity threats of self-report and mono-method. such as individual differences or factors representing the broader social context of PA (Levy and Williams. Kavanagh et al. (1991). S. Still. the relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance seems to be more complex than is often assumed in PA research. and West. the fact that the data were gathered at one point in time makes it impossible to draw inferences of causality. the possibility of reverse causality cannot be completely ruled out.JMP 26. the only construct that could have been validly measured by other means than self-report is work performance. mono-method variance should not represent a serious threat. Research in other organizations from different industries in other countries is warranted. Sage. however. Second. since relationships may differ in other countries. 2007). before any ﬁrm conclusions can be drawn. 2008b). CA. 2004) and that supervisors may lack both the ability and the motivation to achieve accurate performance ratings (Murphy. References Aiken. longitudinal studies controlling for prior performance or experimental studies are needed to come closer to causality inferences on the relationships examined. Still. Consequently.g. and it is not obvious that the ﬁndings from this study can generalize to other countries (Fletcher and Perry. 2004). Even though the respondents rated their prior experiences with PA and their current work performance. The contributions of this study should be viewed in the light of several limitations. however.. Thousand Oaks. A ﬁnal limitation may be that the data were obtained exclusively from Norwegian organizations. L. 1994). future research on PA reactions and employee outcomes should continue to investigate potential moderators of this relationship. however. Research suggests that positive performance evaluations may lead to more positive PA reactions (e.G. respondents were drawn from three relatively different organizations. 2001). the relatively modest correlations between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance (r ¼ 0:24) and affective organizational commitment (r ¼ 0:39) further indicate that mono-method variance has not heavily inﬂuenced the observed relationships. PA research suggests that performance ratings conducted by supervisors may be even more biased than self-report measures (Levy and Williams. this study provides support for the position that reactions to PA impact on the effectiveness of appraisal systems. First.2 132 importance of positive PA reactions as the point of departure in positively inﬂuencing employee attitudes. the reliance on self-reported questionnaire data causes concerns about possible mono-method bias and percept-percept inﬂated measures (e.
4. New York. L. Kavanagh. Hair. Anderson. Journal of Applied Psychology.. and Purcell. Keeping. 1. Cawley. in Sonnentag. Fletcher. 74 No. Vol. 38 No. NJ. 64 No. and Taylor.R. 28 No. CT. Lawrence Erlbaum. T. Hillsdale. “Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda”.L.M.C. Tyler. and Levy. “The inﬂuence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived fairness: the higher they are. J. pp. (1992). (2007). Journal of Applied Psychology. pp. 132-50. Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Human Resources.R. (2007). Vol. Vol. Vol.R. P.. 2. Academy of Management Journal. (2000). 735-54. 1. and Cordery. 87-105.. 275-91.E. (1983).E. P. C. 37. “The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: a meta-analysis”.S. International Handbook of Industrial. Fletcher. Journal of Management Studies. J. R. pp. 4. R. 129-77. Benson. Keeping. 708-23. J. Multivariate Data Analysis. 14 No. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol. pp. JAI. D. and Perry. I. R. R. 473-87. Kifﬁn-Petersen. R. 45 No. and Cooper-Schneider. and Lituchy. pp. (2002). “Understanding performance appraisal satisfaction”.D. Jawahar. “Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of ﬁeld investigations”. Blackwell. London. and Viswesvaran. Guzzo. “The inﬂuence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions”. 115-35. G. C. 67-76.E. Journal of Applied Psychology. pp. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior.L. C.. 85 No. Jette. 4. pp. Kessler. Lee. 33 No.A. E. pp. P. Sinangil.. Performance appraisal reactions 133 . 60-72.-M. and Brown.. S. Vol. pp. Journal of Applied Psychology. (Eds). and Cohen. I. “Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behaviour: reciprocity or ‘It’s my job’?”.. “Trust.). A.A. L. Administrative Science Quarterly. “Performance appraisal reactions: measurement. Ones. in Anderson. modeling.Brockner. pp. (1998). 2. 1. J. (1979). 1. Earley.. R. pp. and method bias”. 615-33. 5. “Performance appraisal and feedback: a consideration of national culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends”. M.C. (1994). Maxwell Macmillan International. NY. Work & Organizational Psychology. B. International Journal Human Resource Management.J. and Katzell. “Percept-percept inﬂation in micro-organizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect”. (2003). 241-61.A.A. Vol. “Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations”. Chichester. Sage. pp. (1990). M. J.. Personnel Psychology. (Eds). S. Folger. and Cummings. pp.. P. R. Ilgen.. (Ed. Greenwich. E.. “Design performance appraisal systems to improve performance”. 83 No. Psychological Management of Individual Performance. and Wagner. 1.A.B. Vol. R. the harder they fall”. P. 127-44. Oxford. J. and Levy. W. Fletcher. C. 5th ed. (1998). Tatham. C. J. L. in Locke. T. (Ed. and Gonzales. (2001). Coyle-Shapiro. S.M. Vol. H. (1992). and Black. Vol. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. C.M. Vol.D.. B. “A due process metaphor for performance appraisal”. Vol. J. N. 2nd ed. 14. 349-71. Cohen.. (2001). (1985). Wiley. M. pp. pp. (2004). “Appraisal: an individual psychological analysis”. 85-106.M.S. pp. J. Fisher. Crampton. Journal of Labor Research. Konovsky. Vol. 4. 79 No.A. D.D. DeNisi. Research in Organizational Behavior.).F. “Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance”. and Cropanzano. in Staw. Northcraft.. Vol. individualism and job characteristics as predictors of employee preference for teamwork”. 41 No. 93-116. (2000).
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Korczynski. Vol. (2002). 365-85. Ø. H. 881-905. 20-52. “Percpectives on the relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance”.R. 321-35. Vol. a meta-analysis. A. Meyer. “Work performance. Sage. D. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. American Psychologist. Van Tuijl.R. (2006a). 11. 7. Honolulu. G. (1996). “Participation in the design of performance management systems: a quasi-experimental ﬁeld study”. 6. 378-97. Vol. (2002).P. Vol. Vol. B.P.. Vol. K. Meyer. Martinsen. and Goal-based Perspectives. and work motivation: the roles of pay administration and pay level”. pp. 504-22.A. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior.R. G. Human Performance. J. B. Vol. (1995).A. “Affective. and Algera. (2003). “Organizational and occupational commitment: knowledge workers in large corporations”. pp. (1998). E. Thousand Oaks. J.JMP 26. 2.L. Stanley. Sage. 9 No. 1 No. HI. Journal of Managerial Issues. “Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance”. 11 No. 309-18. Vol. Kleingeld. 36 No.P. Thousand Oaks.2 Klein. pp. and Application. and Costello. pp. (2004).W. “The value of feedback and goal setting over goal setting alone and potential moderators of this effect: a meta-analysis”.E. “Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of motivation”. 2. M.J. Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social. 4. “The impact of interview process and context on performance appraisal interview effectiveness”. 30 No. Organizational. and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents. Vol. P. “Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and work performance”. paper presented at the 112th meeting for the American Psychological Society. correlates. and Allan. Organizational Dynamics. May. 160-75. pp. 61 No.B. “The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future”. affective commitment. Personnel Review. 3. J. 705-17. (2008b). “Goal setting: a ﬁve-step approach to behavior change”. S. Murphy. (2004). (1997). 254-84. Neubert. pp. S. (2004). A. B. Latham. Kuvaas. 1 No.. Vol. Journal of Management Studies. K. Vol.P. (2008a). The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Kuvaas. pp. 3. Locke. A. 3. 27 No. “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review. pp. CA. Murphy.J. and Williams. Vol. pp.A.J. and Frenkel. J.asp?v¼9&n¼11 134 . 2. 39 No. 25 No.J. Research. and DeNisi. (2006b). 197-205. Vol. 1. (2007).N. and Topolnytsky. and Cleveland. Herscovitch. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 6. (1994). Murphy. A. 119 No. 32 No. “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey”. Osborne.N. Journal of Management.. pp. and a preliminary feedback intervention theory”. Research & Evaluation. “Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal component analysis”. 9. T. pp. “The creative personality: a synthesis and development of the Creative Person Proﬁle”. pp. CA. H.. available at: http://PAREonline. L. Kluger. N. Practical Assessment. 148-60. (2004). 6. Vol. K. J. Vol. (2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior. Levy. and Latham. pp. 17 No.R. 831-51. and consequences”. pp. J. L. and Snell.Y. 3. continuance. 775-801. 57 No. Kuvaas. Psychological Bulletin.net/getvn. M.J.
and work teams). Leiva. and Jones. B. P.no Performance appraisal reactions 135 .Pettijohn. R. “Perceived purposes of performance appraisal: correlates of individual.P. Vol. Vol. (2001). Vol.M. His research interests include micro HRM such as effects of HR-practices and systems (e. T. work design. 3. H.B. L.G.S. pay systems. (2007). measurement. Psychology and Marketing. 3.I. Pettijohn. and mood and framing in decision making. compensation and motivation. “Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioral responses in appraisal research”. A.g. pp. “Testing a model of performance appraisal ﬁt on attitudinal outcomes”. 37 No. L. and validation”.S. (1994). pp. Van Dyne. Whiting. 339-74. training and development. 765-802.J. 337-64. 315-43. R. performance appraisal. J. cognitive ˚ rd Kuvaas can be styles and decision making. pp. Vol. About the author ˚ rd Kuvaas is a Professor of Organizational Psychology at the Norwegian School of Ba Management. C.kuvaas@bi. 18 No. “Are performance appraisal a bureaucratic exercise or can they be used to enhance sales-force satisfaction and commitment?”. S.. 18 No.. Academy of Management Journal.J. (2007). Graham. Wright. employee organization relationships. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 4. 25 No.and position-focused purposes on attitudinal outcomes”.. Taylor. pp. (2004). and Keillor. Ba contacted at: bard.. and Kline.D. Youngcourt. 10 No. R. and Dienesch. pp.J. “Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redeﬁnition. Vol. The Psychologist-Manager Journal.W. 127-48. 2. 4. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
80 0.79 0.65 0.72 0.2 Appendix Items PHPA AC Components PRFB WP IM AO – – 136 Table AI. I’m continuously informed about what I have done well or what I could have done better (RFB) I know little about what my colleagues think about my work performance (RFB) I almost always perform better than what can be characterized as acceptable performance (WP) I try to work as hard as possible (WP) 0.80 0.89 0.80 0.JMP 26.59 0.89 0.87 0. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation Helps me understand what is expected of me in such a way that I can contribute to organizational effectiveness (GS) Provides clear and direct information about my standing in relation to the goals of my department (FB) The feedback I receive helps me understand the organization’s strategy (FB) Provides me with information about organizational goals (GS) Helps me understand the organization’s vision and strategy (GS) Provides clear goals I can direct attention to (GS) Helps me prioritize between different work activities (GS) I see clear coherence between my own work and the performance of my department (GS) Provides useful feedback (FB) The feedback I receive agrees with what I have actually achieved (FB) I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organizationa (AC) I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organizationa (AC) I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organizationa (AC) This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me (AC) I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own (AC) I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization (AC) I receive frequent and continuous feedback on how I do my job (RFB) I receive clear and direct information about my work performance through continuously provided feedback (RFB) I rarely get feedback.89 0.87 0. except for formal feedback systems such as performance appraisal (RFB) In my job.76 0.50 0.90 0.81 0.87 0.76 (continued ) .89 0.73 0.88 0.54 0.80 0.
values shown in italics are those included in the ﬁnal scales.41 1.85 0. AC ¼ affective commitment.82 0. PRFB ¼ perceived regular feedback.44 1.emeraldinsight. n.74 0. PHPA ¼ perceived helpfulness of PA.63 0.67 0.87 3.57 0.a. WP ¼ work performance.40 0.79 0.73 0.81 n.84 0.99 0. IM ¼ intrinsic motivation.80 0.89 0.30 are not shown.com/reprints .52 0.93 Performance appraisal reactions 137 0.76 0.80 0.03 5.66 2.63 1.a.85 0. AO ¼ autonomy orientation Table AI.89 0.96 3.43 Coefﬁcient alpha for ﬁnal scales 0.83 4. factor loadings less than 0. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org 0.Items PHPA AC Components PRFB WP IM 0.32 10.37 3.28 7.65 0.54 0. Notes: aReverse coded.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.50 2.56 AO – – I often expend extra effort in carrying out my job (WP) I often perform better than can be expected (WP) The quality of my work is top-notch (WP) I’m very engaged on doing a job while at work (WP) The tasks that I do at work are enjoyable (IM) My job is so interesting that it is a motivation in itself (IM) The tasks that I do at work are themselves representing a driving power in my job (IM) My job is meaningful (IM) I almost feel lucky being paid for a job I like this much (IM) The job is sometimes like a hobby to me (IM) I am more independent than most people (AO) I have a greater need than most people to make decisions on the basis of my own independent thinking (AO) I seek out situations that provide room for independent decision-making (AO) I like being told exactly how I should do my joba (AO) I don’t have a strong need to organize my own schedule at worka (AO) I do myself take the main responsibility for whether I do a good or poor job in different contexts (AO) It’s better to ﬁnd out things on my own rather than having other people tell me (AO) I dislike rules and routines that limit my personal freedom of choice (AO) Initial eigenvalues 10. some of the items are shortened owing to limited space.87 4.43 Percent of variance 25.57 0.79 1.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.