HR Analytics and Performance Appraisal System

Management Research Review
HR analytics and performance appraisal system: A conceptual framework for

employee performance improvement
Anshu Sharma, Tanuja Sharma,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Anshu Sharma, Tanuja Sharma, (2017) "HR analytics and performance appraisal system: A
conceptual framework for employee performance improvement", Management Research Review, Vol.
Downloaded by National Taiwan Normal University At 23:03 08 February 2018 (PT)
40 Issue: 6, pp.684-697, https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2016-0084

Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2016-0084
Downloaded on: 08 February 2018, At: 23:03 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 115 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1894 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance",
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 3 pp. 308-323 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008</a>
(2016),"Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Developing a conceptual framework using competing
values approach", Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 334-352 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
PR-07-2014-0164">https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2014-0164</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:405954 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm
MRR
40,6 HR analytics and performance
appraisal system
A conceptual framework for employee
684 performance improvement
Anshu Sharma
Received 14 April 2016
Revised 20 November 2016 Department of Human Resource Management, School of Management,
11 February 2017 BML Munjal University, Gurgaon, India, and
Accepted 17 March 2017

Tanuja Sharma
Department of Human Resource Management,
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the role of human resource (HR) analytics on employees’ willingness
to improve performance. In doing so, the paper examines issues related to the performance appraisal (PA)
system which affect employees’ willingness to improve performance and how HR analytics can be a potential
solution to deal with such issues.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper develops a conceptual framework along with propositions
by integrating both academic and practitioner literatures, in the field of HR analytics and performance
management.
Findings – The paper proposes that the use of HR analytics will be negatively related to subjectivity bias in
the PA system, thereby positively affecting employees’ perceived accuracy and fairness. This further
positively affects employees’ satisfaction with the PA system, which subsequently increases employees’
willingness to improve performance.
Research limitations/implications – The paper provides implications for both researchers and
practitioners in the performance management area for improving employees’ performance by applying HR
analytics as a strategic tool in the PA system. It also provides implications for future researchers to
empirically test the conceptual framework in different organizational settings.
Originality/value – The paper offers insights into how the use of HR analytics can deal with issues of
subjectivity bias in the PA system and positively affects employees’ willingness to improve performance.
Keywords Performance appraisal, Employee performance, Performance improvement,
HR analytics, Perceived accuracy
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Employees are a significant investment for organizations (Schraeder and Jordan, 2011), as they
have the power to affect organizational effectiveness (Sundaray, 2011). To meet increasing
competition, they are expected to perform higher and better (Biswas and Varma, 2011). With
rising importance of employee performance for organizational effectiveness and competitive
Management Research Review advantage, organizations are increasingly investing in various development activities such as
Vol. 40 No. 6, 2017
pp. 684-697
coaching, developmental centers and career planning for performance improvement (Hameed
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
and Waheed, 2011). It is seen that employees’ performance improvement and effectiveness
DOI 10.1108/MRR-04-2016-0084 are strongly affected by their performance evaluations during performance appraisals
(Latham et al., 1993; Gibbons and Kleiner, 1994; Mir and Ahmed, 2014). Out of all human HR analytics
resource (HR) practices, the performance appraisal (PA) system is seen as most critical, but it
also accounts for a large portion of employees’ dissatisfaction in terms of perceived fairness and
effectiveness (Shrivastava and Purang, 2011), as biased performance evaluations create
challenges for ethical decision-making in organizations (Maas and Torres-González, 2011), and
usually result in employee dissatisfaction with the appraisal process (Ahmad et al., 2012).
Dissatisfaction with the performance process can further be linked to negative employee
outcomes such as higher turnover intention and lower commitment levels (Dusterhoff et al., 685
2014), which subsequently negatively affects employee performance (Fu and Deshpande, 2014;
Wong et al., 2015).
However, there is limited research on how the PA system can help improve employee
performance (DeNisi and Pritchard, 2006). This may be a probable reason why most
companies only report overall effectiveness and efficiency of their PA system and shy away
from reporting its effect on employee performance (Fink, 2010). Establishing an effective PA
system is one of the key challenges faced by HR professionals for performance improvement
(Harrington and Lee, 2015). Hence, there is a strong need for research to look into how PA
systems can be made more acceptable to employees and to further examine their impact on
employee performance. Reviewing literature on PA systems, Murphy and DeNisi (2008)
suggested that research needs to examine the effects of new technologies on PA systems, as
it is seen that adoption and implementation of new information technologies improve
performance in organizations (Edmondson et al., 2003; Wang, 2010; Schraeder and Jordan,
2011). Recently, Farr et al. (2013) highlighted that incorporating technology into the PA
system has several benefits over traditional PA systems and can benefit both organizations
and employees. New age technology, such as analytics, also referred to as HR analytics,
when used for HR purposes (Bassi, 2011; Davenport et al., 2010; Fink, 2010; Levenson, 2005),
can have a significant impact on individual and organizational performance (CIPD, 2015). It
is also seen that top-performing organizations tend to apply analytics rather than intuition
to their decision-making activities, which differentiates them from their low-performing
counterparts (LaValle et al., 2011). However, it is observed that HR analytics still play a little
role in HR strategy formulation and decision-making (Falletta, 2014). Hence, in this paper,
we aim to explore the role of HR analytics in the PA system and subsequently on employees’
2. Research question
The purpose of the present paper is to explore two research questions:
RQ1. How does the PA system affect employee’s willingness to improve performance?
RQ2. How does the use of HR analytics in the PA system affect employee’s willingness
to improve performance?
To explore the above-stated research questions, the paper begins by examining the issues
related to the PA system that affect employees’ willingness to improve performance. The
paper then examines how the use of HR analytics in the PA system can be used to deal with
such issues.
3. Theoretical development
3.1 Performance appraisal system and issues of subjectivity bias
Performance measurement is a key element of performance management (Brudan, 2010).
One of the issues in measuring performance is that it is not a static entity but a fluid process,
MRR hence there are a number of levels at which performance can be measured, such as input,
40,6 output and processes (Stannack, 1996). To improve performance, it is important to quantify
the multi-dimensional aspects of performance which play a dominant role in performance
measurement systems for better measurement and management of performance
(Dervitsiotis, 2004). PA systems designed by organizations may vary in their levels of
subjectivity and objectivity in their evaluation criterion, where subjectivity is defined as the
686 extent to which rater has a direct personal influence on the ratee’s performance rating (Maas
and Torres-González, 2011). Although, subjectivity in performance measurement was
introduced to decrease distortion by taking into account those aspects of the employees’ job
that cannot be captured through quantitative measures or in those cases where the employer
is not able to measure what he requires from employees (Kauhanen and Napari, 2012).
Subjective performance measures can be defined as the superior’s subjective judgments
about the qualitative aspects of the job performance and increased discretion of managers in
performance ratings (Moers, 2005), which also resulted in performance evaluation bias.
PA systems suffer from subjectivity bias for various reasons (Laird and Clampitt, 1985);
one such reason is the human element related to raters’ attributions and expectations
(Moser, 1992; Gibbons and Kleiner, 1993), assessment being a cognitive process. Managers’
cognitive ability to recall employees’ performance behavior over a period adds to PA biases
in which performance information is selected, observed and organized by them, which leads
to observational inaccuracy affecting accuracy and effectiveness of the PA system (Lee,
1985). Tsui and Bruce (1986) suggested that affect is a source of bias in appraisal, as it
reduced rater accuracy in performance ratings. Personal factors such as employees’ gender,
mood and interpersonal affect (Robbins and DeNisi, 1993, 1998) were also found to bias PA
ratings. Interpersonal affect was found to affect performance appraisal ratings and showed
how managers inflate performance ratings of low-performing subordinates due to
interpersonal affect (Varma et al., 1996; Varma et al., 2005). Ittner et al. (2003) revealed that
inherent subjectivity in the balanced score card plan led to the problems of favoritism and
uncertainty in the reward system. Earlier multi-source assessments, also known as 360-
degree feedbacks, were used to increase objectivity; however they also faced certain issues,
such as the non-equivalence in ratings (Van der Heijden and Nijhof, 2004). Subjectivity in
performance measurement was found to be a strong reason for inconsistent application of
objective performance measures and a potential gaming strategy (Watts et al., 2009).
Highlighting the presence of subjective biases in the PA process, Bento, White and Zacur
(2012) revealed how obesity stigma influenced employees’ PA, once again questioning the
“the ethos of objectivity” in PA. Also, centrality bias, a type of manager’s performance
evaluation bias where the manager tends to compress performance ratings, emerges when
managers subjectively evaluate performance, and this bias negatively affects performance
improvement (Bol, 2011). Few researchers have shown that cultural variation of the rater in
the form of interdependent self-construal also leads to subjective biases such as evaluation
leniency and creates preferences during performance evaluations (Mishra and Roch, 2013;
Saffie-Robertson and Brutus, 2014). The implementation of pay-for-performance raised
issues related to perceived inequity due to subjective biases in performance measurement
(Park, 2014). Most of the performance evaluations are deliberately distorted or biased
(Campbell et al., 1998). Most of the employee dissatisfaction issues associated with the PA
system are related to this subjectivity in performance measurement (Cooke, 2008). There is a
need to reduce rater bias, as it is seen as a barrier to effective PA, such as gender and group
identification (Roberson et al., 2007; Wilson, 2010; Javidmehr and Ebrahimpour, 2015).
Issues of subjectivity related to human cognition make it difficult for the performance
management system to be fair and accurate (Kim and Rubianty, 2011), and subjective
evaluations are perceived to be unfair and biased (Maas and Torres-González, 2011). Hence, HR analytics
it is proposed that subjectivity bias in the PA system would decrease employees’ perceived
accuracy and fairness of the PA system.
P1. Subjectivity bias in the PA system will be negatively related to the employees’
perceived accuracy and fairness of the PA system.
687
3.2 HR analytics and performance appraisal system
Biases result in discrimination at work, and means should be employed to check such biases
(Hennessey and Bernardin, 2003; Kastl and Kleiner, 2003). Scholars have highlighted the
need to resolve issues related to subjective biases in performance evaluation (Laird and
Clampitt, 1985; Maas and Torres-González, 2011; Moers, 2005; Van der Heijden and Nijhof,
2004; Watts et al., 2009). Providing objective measures is one way to mitigate biases in
supervisory ratings (Campbell et al., 1998). Researchers suggested structured diary-keeping
as one way to reduce inaccuracy by minimizing performance information recall bias (DeNisi
and Peters, 1996; Varma et al., 1996). The principal–agent model states that favoritism and
bias can be reduced by placing more emphasis on objective rather than subjective measures
in the PA (Ittner et al., 2003) and with the use of observable, objective evaluation criteria.
Performance measurement is never seen as a complete scientific activity, and there is always
a need to develop frameworks that generate accurate and trustworthy information for HR
use (Baron, 2011). Organizations have started appreciating the need for unbiased, accurate
and timely performance information, as the time and quality of information provided
determine the speed and quality of HR decision-making (Hill, 2013). According to Simon
(1955), human decision-making is bounded by their limited cognitive ability and the
availability of information for making that decision, which he conceptualized as the term
“bounded rationality”. He posited that the quality of managerial decisions improves
substantially, that is it becomes “objectively rational” if done with computer-assisted
reasoning, as these decisions are not accompanied with any social and/or cognitive biases
(Simon, 1996). Tools such as fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making have been found to make
fair performance evaluations by identifying and sorting employees based on their
improvement needs (Manoharan et al., 2011). Hence, conscious efforts should be made by
organizations to use information systems so as to facilitate unbiased decision-making (Maas
and Torres-González, 2011).
This is where HR analytics can play a significant role. HR function had undergone
transformation with the advent of the human resource information system, and there are
possibilities that analytics will further transform HR into a strategic business partner by
providing performance data (Lawler et al., 2004). The huge data collected through various
information systems are of little use, if the data cannot be properly analyzed to provide
meaningful implications (Pemmaraju, 2007). Although most of the organizations till now
used analytics to make financial and operational decisions, organizations have begun to use
analytics for HR decisions, such as to evaluate employee performance and/or to allocate
employees’ time and effort (Kiron et al., 2012). HR metrics are found to affect HR decisions
(Dulebohn and Johnson, 2013), but HR analytics is more than just metrics and/or scorecards
(Mondore et al., 2011), it consists of various modeling tools such as behavioral modeling,
predictive modeling, impact analysis, cost–benefit analysis and ROI analysis (Levenson,
2005) required for strategic HR decision-making. Also, the use of analytics makes it easier to
collect, document and retrieve a variety of performance data from various sources (both
external and internal), which provides manager with better information to observe employee
performance in terms of both outcome and behavior. Analytics has greater ability to capture
MRR and aggregate data; hence, the insights derived through data analytics help to take fact-
40,6 based decisions (Kiron et al., 2012) and help managers to focus on hard facts rather than
intuition, which also changes the power dynamics in the company (Falletta, 2014). As the
use of HR analytics provides integrated, consistent and trustworthy data (LaValle et al.,
2011), it can significantly reduce biases related to human cognition. Reducing such
subjectivity biases makes the PA process more accurate and reliable (Murphy and DeNisi,
688 2008). Hence, it is proposed from the above discussion that HR analytics can help increase
perceived accuracy of the PA system by giving more objective, accurate and unbiased data
related to employees’ performance behavior.
P2a. Use of HR analytics in the PA system will be negatively related to the subjectivity
bias in the PA system.
P2b. Use of HR analytics in the PA system will be positively related to employees’

perceived accuracy and fairness of the PA system.
3.3 Employees’ satisfaction with the performance appraisal system

Researchers need to study factors that predict positive employee reactions to appraisals,
such as their perceived accuracy, fairness and satisfaction with the PA system (Pichler,
2012). Employees’ perception of PA system effectiveness is measured through their
perceived accuracy and fairness of the PA system (Sharma et al., 2016). Perceived fairness of
the PA system is found to be affected by fulfillment of employees’ psychological contract
(Harrington and Lee, 2015). In a multi-level study, Farndale and Kelliher (2013) found that
organizational commitment was affected by employees’ perceived fairness of the PA
system. Employees lose trust in the PA system and subsequently in the performance ratings
when they do not see this system to be fair (Murphy and DeNisi, 2008). In a meta-analytical
review of justice literature, Colquitt et al. (2001) revealed that fairness perceptions at work
were largely affected by justice perceptions. Organizational justice theory (Skarlicki and
Latham, 1996) has often been used to understand acts of perceived discrimination in an
organization (Harris et al., 2004; Bibby, 2008; Wood et al., 2013). Using organizational justice
as a theoretical support, Greenberg (1990, 2004) posits that the construct of perceived
fairness of the PA system is multidimensional in nature with three sub-constructs, namely,
distributive, procedural, interactional – interpersonal and relational justice. These justice
dimensions can be linked to perceived fairness of an actual appraisal rating, of procedures
used to determine the appraisal rating and of the rater’s interpersonal treatment of the ratee
during the appraisal process, respectively (Narcisse and Harcourt, 2008). Also, justice
dimensions are found to affect reciprocatory behaviors by employees (Frenkel and Bednall,
2016). Fairness perceptions influenced by these justice perceptions lead to satisfaction with
the PA system and performance feedback (Jawahar, 2007). Justice is also seen as a predictor
to acceptability of the PA system (Briscoe and Claus, 2008). Justice perceptions have found
to mediate relationships between administrative PA activities (namely, salary adjustments,
promotion decisions and performance standards) and organizational commitment (Zhang
and Agarwal, 2009), and satisfaction with the PA system (Thurston and McNall, 2010).
Effectiveness of the PA system depends on justice perceptions of employees (Clarke et al.,
2013). Also, perceptions of organization justice have been found to affect ethical and
unethical behavior at work (Jacobs et al., 2014). However, perceived accuracy, the extent to
which the performance evaluation accurately captures employees’ actual job performance
(Kim and Rubianty, 2011), is seen as an important antecedent to employees’ justice
perceptions, particularly their perceptions of distributive justice (Narcisse and Harcourt,
2008). Increased accuracy of the decisions positively affects justice perceptions in the PA HR analytics
system (Briscoe and Claus, 2008). On the contrary, acceptability of the PA system increases
trust in the management (Mayer and Davis, 1999). Perceived accuracy has been identified as
an important predictor of employees’ satisfaction with the PA system (Keeping and Levy,
2000). Also, from the perspective of moral judgment, employees’ satisfaction with the PA
system is partly determined by the perceived moral justifiability of the PA process
(Dusterhoff et al., 2014). Hence, perceived accuracy and fairness become important
antecedents which can affect employees’ satisfaction with the PA process. 689
P3. Employees’ perceived accuracy and fairness of the PA system will be positively
related to employees’ satisfaction with the PA system.
3.4 Employees’ willingness to improve performance

Research claims that employees’ performance improvement after receiving performance
feedback largely depends on their attitude toward the PA system (Maurer and Tarulli, 1996).
Literature on performance feedback suggests that most of the time feedback interventions
had a negative impact on performance (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996; Cannon and Witherspoon,
2005), as performance improvement is most likely to occur when the receiver has a positive
feedback orientation and reacts positively to change (Smither et al., 2005). Also if employees
accept the PA system, the supervisor/rater is likely to give true feedback and would not
resort to other means of performance improvement because he/she understands that
employees are more likely to accept their feedback (Briscoe and Claus, 2008). Also, the
relationship between performance ratings and feedback acceptance is mediated by the
employee reactions to feedback (Bell and Arthur, 2008).
One of the reasons for non-acceptance of the performance feedback is the lack of
agreement with the PA system (Campbell et al., 1998). Employees often disagree with
their performance evaluations, as they perceive them to be inaccurate (Campbell and
Lee, 1988). Such performance evaluations, in the form of performance ratings, do not
provide sufficient information for employees to improve performance, as these rating
scales do not completely eliminate the subjectivity bias (Van der Heijden and Nijhof,
2004). The perceived fairness and accuracy of performance feedback is one of the
determinants for employees’ willingness to improve performance (Lee and Akhtar,
1996). The acceptance of performance feedback increases self-efficacy among
employees with regard to that feedback (Nease et al., 1999). Even negative feedback can
result in performance improvement (Fedor et al., 2001), if that feedback is accepted by
employee. Only if employees accept and trust the system to be legitimate, they have
positive reactions to their performance feedback (both positive and negative) and will
try to improve their performance (Briscoe and Claus, 2008). After the initial reaction to
feedback, the employee sets the goal and start taking action which can lead to
performance improvement (Smither et al., 2005). Satisfaction with PA feedback has also
been linked to satisfaction with the rater, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment (Jawahar, 2006). Fairness and justice perceptions (Colquitt et al., 2001) and
satisfaction with the PA system are seen as important predictors of employee
performance (DeNisi and Pritchard, 2006). Hence, satisfaction with the PA system can
affect work performance (Kuvaas, 2006). Employees’ perceptions of fairness and
accuracy is affected by the quality of PA feedback, which affects employees’
performance (David, 2013; Selvarajan and Cloninger, 2012). Employee performance can
be improved by increasing their willingness to improve performance after receiving the
performance feedback. This can happen only when they accept the feedback received
MRR and work on it, which largely depends on how satisfied they are with the PA system.
40,6 Hence, it is proposed that employees’ satisfaction with the PA system would result in
an increase in employees’ willingness to improve performance.
P4. Employees’ satisfaction with the PA system will be positively related to employees’
690
4. Conceptual framework
The conceptual model emerging from the above discussion is shown in Figure 1. The
propositions are denoted as P1, P2a, P2b, P3 and P4. The propositions explaining negative
relationships are denoted by dotted lines (P1 and P2a). Likewise, solid lines denote positive
relationships (P2b, P3 and P4). Here, P1 explains a negative relationship as to how

subjectivity bias in the PA system reduces employees’ perceived accuracy and fairness of
the PA system. Similarly, P2a explains how the use of HR analytics in the PA system
negatively affects the subjectivity bias in the PA system. The other three propositions (P2b,
P3 and P4) explain positive relationships such as how perception of accuracy and fairness of
the PA system increases employees’ satisfaction with the PA system, subsequently
increasing their willingness to improve performance.
5. Discussion and conclusion

This paper contributes in several ways. First, it integrates and extends the literature on
two independent fields of study: analytics and PA, former being predominantly an
information technology domain (Pemmaraju, 2007) and latter being an HR
management domain. Thus, the present study is inter-disciplinary in nature. Second, it
is one of the few studies to examine the role of HR analytics on the PA system and
employees’ performance improvement. Third, it attempts to address the call of
researchers to deal with issues of subjectivity in the PA system by identifying HR
analytics as a potential solution (Laird and Clampitt, 1985; Maas and Torres-González,
2011; Moers, 2005; Van der Heijden and Nijhof, 2004; Watts, Augustine and Lawrence,
2009) with organizational justice theory (Skarlicki and Latham, 1996) and bounded
rationality (Simon, 1955) as the theoretical underpinning.
Future researchers may empirically test this conceptual framework and propositions in
different organizational settings to study how HR analytics affect PA systems and employee
Figure 1.
Conceptual model
performance improvement. The study can be extended further by linking HR analytics to HR analytics
other important employee and organizational outcomes, such as PA, which is found to affect
employees’ participation in informal learning activities at work (Bednall et al., 2014), and
organizational performance (Ayers, 2015). As employee performance is seen as a function of
both individual and organizational factors (Douglas, 2014), future studies may relate how
HR analytics can improve employee performance by linking to other organizational factors
such as organizations’ service climate (Sharma, 2008) and organizational psychological
climate (Biswas and Varma, 2011), which have been found to affect employee performance. 691
Also, it is important to note that the role of HR analytics in reducing biases in the PA system
is limited to the quality of data. HR needs to measure what is important rather than
measuring what is easy to (Bassi, 2011; Ingham, 2011).
Recently, analytical tools such as Synergita and IBM Kenexa HR analytics powered by
IBM Watson help HR professionals to get insights into performance data for performance
improvement and talent management (IBM, 2017; Synergita, 2017). In one of Gartner’s
research notes, Hostmann et al. (2009) developed a performance management framework
linking analytics and business intelligence. Our paper resonates with the work of Kasemsap
(2015) on how business analytics can be used for organizational transformation such as
performance management.
However, the use of HR analytics for strategic decision-making largely depends on the
organizational culture because to promote fact-based decision-making to reduce the
cognitive biases in PA, organizations should have data-oriented leadership (LaValle et al.,
2011). Such a data-driven culture may be defined as:
[. . .] a pattern of behaviors and practices by a group of people who share a belief that having,
understanding and using certain kinds of data and information plays a critical role in the success
of their organization (Kiron et al., 2013, p. 18).
Based on this culture, organizations may be categorized on their level of analytical
capability from analytically impaired to analytical competitors (Davenport and Harris,
2007). DELTA (Data, Enterprise, Leadership, Target and Analysts) provides a basic
framework for implementing analytics in organizations (Davenport et al., 2010). Willing
firms which are analytical innovators build a data-oriented culture by recruiting and
promoting analytical talent (Ransbotham et al., 2015).
To conclude, this paper made an attempt to explore the role of HR analytics on PA system
and its subsequent impact on employees’ willingness to improve performance by proposing a
conceptual model with testable propositions. The paper highlights subjectivity bias in the PA
system as one of the issues that needs to be addressed to increase its perceived accuracy and
fairness, which in turn affect employees’ satisfaction with the appraisal system. To do so, HR
analytics was found to be a potential solution by increasing accuracy and objectivity in the
appraisal process with the use of sophisticated data analysis tools. Along with implications for
both practitioners and researchers in the field of performance management, the paper also
suggested directions for future research to further enrich the field.
References
Ahmad, R., Paya, L., Baig, A., Mansor, N.N.A. and Ismail, W.K.W. (2012), “The relationship between
selected factors of rating dissatisfaction and employees’ satisfaction on the appraisal decisions”,
International Journal of Innovation and Business Strategy, Vol. 1.
Ayers, R.S. (2015), “Aligning individual and organizational performance goal alignment in federal
government agency performance appraisal programs”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 169-191.
MRR Baron, A. (2011), “Measuring human capital”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 30-35.
40,6 Bassi, L. (2011), “Raging debates in HR analytics”, People and Strategy, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 14-18.
Bednall, T.C., Sanders, K. and Runhaar, P. (2014), “Stimulating informal learning activities through
perceptions of performance appraisal quality and human resource management system strength: a
two-wave study”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
Bell, S.T. and Arthur, J.W. (2008), “Feedback acceptance in developmental assessment centers: the role
692 of feedback message, participant personality and affective response to the feedback session”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 681-703.
Bento, R.F., White, L.F. and Zacur, S.R. (2012), “The stigma of obesity and discrimination in
performance appraisal: a theoretical model”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 23 No. 15, pp. 3196-3224.
Bibby, C.L. (2008), “Should I stay or should I leave? Perceptions of age discrimination, organizational
justice, and employee attitudes on intentions to leave”, Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 13 No. 2, p. 63.
Biswas, S. and Varma, A. (2011), “Antecedents of employee performance: an empirical investigation in
India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 177-192.
Bol, J.C. (2011), “The determinants and performance effects of managers' performance evaluation
biases”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 1549-1575.
Briscoe, D.R. and Claus, L.M. (2008), “Employee performance management: policies and practices in
multinational enterprises”, in Varma, A., Budhwar, P.S. and DeNisi, A.S. (Eds), Performance
Management Systems: A Global Perspective, Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group, New York,
NY, pp. 15-39.
Brudan, A. (2010), “Rediscovering performance management: systems, learning and integration”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 109-123.
Campbell, D. and Lee, C. (1988), “Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: development versus
evaluation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 302-314.
Campbell, D.J., Campbell, K.M. and Chia, H.B. (1998), “Merit pay, performance appraisal, and individual
motivation: an analysis and alternative”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, p. 131.
Cannon, M.D. and Witherspoon, R. (2005), “Actionable feedback: unlocking the power of learning and
performance improvement”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 120-134.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2015), Evolution of HR Analytics:
Perspectives from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia 2015: Survey Report, Chartered Institute
of Personnel and Development, London.
Clarke, C., Harcourt, M. and Flynn, M. (2013), “Clinical governance, performance appraisal and
interactional and procedural fairness at a New Zealand public hospital”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 667-678.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), “Justice at the millennium: a
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, p. 425.
Cooke, F.L. (2008), “Performance management 13 in China” in Varma, A., Budhwar, P.S. and DeNisi, A.
S. (Eds) Performance Management Systems: A Global Perspective, Routledge: Taylor and Francis
Group, New York, NY, p. 193.
Davenport, T. and Harris, J. (2007), Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning, Harvard
Business Press.
Davenport, T., Harris, J. and Morison, R. (2010), Analytics at Work: Smarter Decisions, Better Results,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H., Harris, J. and Shapiro, J. (2010), “Competing on talent analytics”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 88 No. 10, pp. 52-58.
David, E.M. (2013), “Examining the role of narrative performance appraisal comments on HR analytics
performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 430-450.
DeNisi, A.S. and Peters, L.H. (1996), “Organization of information in memory and the performance
appraisal process: evidence from the field”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 6,
p. 717.
DeNisi, A.S. and Pritchard, R.D. (2006), “Performance appraisal, performance management and
improving individual performance: a motivational framework”, Management and Organization
Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 253-277. 693
Dervitsiotis, K.N. (2004), “The design of performance measurement systems for management learning”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 457-473.
Douglas, H. (2014), Chasing Stars, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
Dulebohn, J.H. and Johnson, R.D. (2013), “Human resource metrics and decision support: a classification
framework”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 71-83.
Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J.B. and MacGregor, J.N. (2014), “The effects of performance rating,
leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice on performance appraisal
satisfaction: applying a moral judgment perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 119 No. 2,
pp. 265-273.
Edmondson, A.C., Winslow, A.B., Bohmer, R.M. and Pisano, G.P. (2003), “Learning how and learning
what: effects of tacit and codified knowledge on performance improvement following technology
adoption”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 197-224.
Falletta, S. (2014), “In search of HR intelligence: evidence-based HR analytics practices in high
performing companies”, People and Strategy, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 20-37.
Farndale, E. and Kelliher, C. (2013), “Implementing performance appraisal: exploring the employee
experience”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 879-897.
Farr, J.L., Fairchild, J. and Cassidy, S.E. (2013), “Technology and performance appraisal”, The
Psychology of Workplace Technology, Vol. 77.
Fedor, D.B., Davis, W.D., Maslyn, J.M. and Mathieson, K. (2001), “Performance improvement efforts in
response to negative feedback: the roles of source power and recipient self-esteem”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, p. 79.
Fink, A.A. (2010), “New trends in human capital research and analytics”, People and Strategy, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 14-21.
Frenkel, S.J. and Bednall, T. (2016), “How training and promotion opportunities, career expectations,
and two dimensions of organizational justice explain discretionary work effort”, Human
Performance, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-32.
Fu, W. and Deshpande, S.P. (2014), “The impact of caring climate, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment on job performance of employees in a China’s insurance company”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 339-349.
Gibbons, F.X. and Kleiner, B.H. (1993), “Factors that bias employee performance appraisals”,
Management Research News, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 10-14.
Gibbons, F.X. and Kleiner, B.H. (1994), “Factors that bias employee performance appraisals”, Work
Study, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 10-13.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 16, pp. 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (2004), “Stress fairness to fair no stress: managing workplace stress by promoting
organizational justice”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, pp. 352-365.
Hameed, A. and Waheed, A. (2011), “Employee development and its effect on employee performance: a
conceptual framework”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 13,
pp. 224-229.
MRR Harrington, J.R. and Lee, J.H. (2015), “What drives perceived fairness of performance appraisal?
Exploring the effects of psychological contract fulfillment on employees’ perceived fairness of
40,6 performance appraisal in US federal agencies”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 214-238.
Harris, M.M., Lievens, F. and Van Hoye, G. (2004), “I think they discriminated against me”: using
prototype theory and organizational justice theory for understanding perceived discrimination
in selection and promotion situations”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 12
694 Nos 1/2, pp. 54-65.
Hennessey, H.W. and Bernardin, H.J. (2003), “The relationship between performance appraisal criterion
specificity and statistical evidence of discrimination”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42
No. 2, pp. 143-158.
Hill, J. (2013), “Using the cloud to accelerate transformation and influence change”, Performance
Improvement, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 19-27.

Hostmann, B., Rayner, N. and Herschel, G. (2009), “Gartner’s business intelligence, analytics and
performance management framework”, Gartner Research Note.
IBM (2017), “Kenexa HR analytics powered by IBM Watson” available at: www-03.ibm.com/software/
products/en/category/hr-analytics (accessed 7 February 2017)
Ingham, J. (2011), “Using a human capital scorecard as a framework for analytical discovery”, Strategic
HR Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 24-29.
Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F. and Meyer, M.W. (2003), “Subjectivity and the weighting of performance
measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 725-758.
Jacobs, G., Belschak, F.D. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2014), “(Un)ethical behavior and performance
appraisal: the role of affect, support, and organizational justice”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Javidmehr, M. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2015), “Performance appraisal bias and errors: the influences and
consequences”, International Journal of Organizational Leadership, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 286.
Jawahar, I.M. (2006), “Correlates of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback”, Journal of Labor
Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 213-236.
Jawahar, I.M. (2007), “The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions”,
Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 735-754.
Kasemsap, K. (2015), “The role of business analytics in performance management”, in Tavana, M. (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Organizational Transformations through Big Data Analytics, IGI
Global, pp. 126-145.
Kastl, M.A. and Kleiner, B.H. (2003), “Bias in workplace investigations and how to minimize it”,
Management Research News, Vol. 26 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 227-231.
Kauhanen, A. and Napari, S. (2012), “Performance measurement and incentive plans”, Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 645-669.
Keeping, L.M. and Levy, P.E. (2000), “Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling, and
method bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 708-723.
Kim, S.E. and Rubianty, D. (2011), “Perceived fairness of performance appraisals in the federal
government: does it matter?”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 31, pp. 329-348.
Kiron, D., Ferguson, R.B. and Kirk Prentice, P. (2013), “From value to vision: reimagining the possible
with data analytics”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 1-23.
Kiron, D., Shockley, R., Kruschwitz, N., Finch, G. and Haydock, M. (2012), “Analytics: the widening
divide”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 1-22.
Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996), “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 119 No. 2, p. 254.
Kuvaas, B. (2006), “Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and HR analytics
moderating roles of work motivation”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Laird, A. and Clampitt, P.G. (1985), “Effective performance appraisal: viewpoints from managers”,
Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 49-57.
Latham, G.P., Skarlicki, D., Irvine, D. and Siegel, J.P. (1993), “The increasing importance of performance
appraisals to employee effectiveness in organizational settings in North America”, International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 87-132. 695
LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M.S. and Kruschwitz, N. (2011), “Big data, analytics and
the path from insights to value”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 21-32.
LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M.S. and Kruschwitz, N. (2011), “Big data, analytics and
the path from insights to value”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 21-32.
Lawler, E.E., Levenson, A.R. and Boudreau, J.W. (2004), “HR metrics and analytics: use and impact”,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 27-35.
Lee, C. (1985), “Increasing performance appraisal effectiveness: matching task types, appraisal process,
and rater training”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 322-331.
Lee, J.S. and Akhtar, S. (1996), “Determinants of employee willingness to use feedback for performance
improvement: cultural and organizational interpretations”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 878-890.
Levenson, A. (2005), “Harnessing the power of HR analytics”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 28-31.
Maas, V.S. and Torres-González, R. (2011), “Subjective performance evaluation and gender
discrimination”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 101 No. 4, pp. 667-681.
Synergita. (2017), “Make right talent decisions with Synergita HR analytics!”, available at: www.
synergita.com/features/analytics.html (accessed 7 February 2017).
Manoharan, T.R., Muralidharan, C. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2011), “An integrated fuzzy multi-attribute
decision-making model for employees' performance appraisal”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 722-745.
Maurer, T.J. and Tarulli, B.A. (1996), “Acceptance of peer/upward performance appraisal systems: role
of work context factors and beliefs about managers' development capability”, Human Resource
Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), “The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: a field quasi-experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, p. 123.
Mir, T. and Ahmed, M.M. (2014), “Impact of employee evaluation on employee performance: a study of
banking sector of Pakistan”, In Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 413-420.
Mishra, V. and Roch, S.G. (2013), “Cultural values and performance appraisal: assessing the effects of
rater self-construal on performance ratings”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 147 No. 4,
pp. 325-344.
Moers, F. (2005), “Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and
subjectivity”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 67-80.
Mondore, S., Douthitt, S. and Carson, M. (2011), “Maximizing the impact and effectiveness of HR
analytics to drive business outcomes”, People and Strategy, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 20-27.
Moser, S.B. (1992), “The effect of conflicting information on leader attributions for poor performance”,
Management Research News, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 6-13.
Murphy, K.R. and DeNisi, A. (2008), “A model of the appraisal process”, in Varma, A., Budhwar, P.S.
and DeNisi, A.S. (Eds), Performance Management Systems: A Global Perspective, Routledge:
Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY, p. 81.
MRR Narcisse, S. and Harcourt, M. (2008), “Employee fairness perceptions of performance appraisals: a Saint
Lucian case study”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19,
40,6 pp. 1152-1169.
Nease, A.A., Mudgett, B.O. and Quinõones, M.A. (1999), “Relationships among feedback sign, self-
efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 5,
pp. 806-814.
696 Park, S. (2014), “Motivation of public managers as raters in performance appraisal: developing a model
of rater motivation”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 387-414.
Pemmaraju, S. (2007), “Converting HR data to business intelligence”, Employment Relations Today,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 13-16.
Pichler, S. (2012), “The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: a meta-
analysis”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 709.

Ransbotham, S., Kiron, D. and Prentice, P.K. (2015), “The talent dividend”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 56 No. 4, p. 1.
Robbins, T.L. and DeNisi, A.S. (1993), “Moderators of sex bias in the performance appraisal process: a
cognitive analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 113-126.
Robbins, T.L. and DeNisi, A.S. (1998), “Mood vs. interpersonal affect: identifying process and rating
distortions in performance appraisal”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 313-325.
Roberson, L., Galvin, B.M. and Charles, A.C. (2007), “13 When group identities matter: bias in
performance appraisal”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 617-650.
Saffie-Robertson, M.C. and Brutus, S. (2014), “The impact of interdependence on performance
evaluations: the mediating role of discomfort with performance appraisal”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 459-473.
Schraeder, M. and Jordan, M. (2011), “Managing performance: a practical perspective on managing
employee performance”, The Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 34 No. 2, p. 4.
Selvarajan, T.T. and Cloninger, P.A. (2012), “Can performance appraisals motivate employees to
improve performance? A Mexican study”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Sharma, N.P., Sharma, T. and Agarwal, M.N. (2016), “Measuring employee perception of performance
management system effectiveness: conceptualization and scale development”, Employee
Relations, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 224-247.
Sharma, T. (2008), “Exploring linkages between employees' perception of performance management
practices, service climate and their customers' perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 47.
Shrivastava, A. and Purang, P. (2011), “Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: a
comparative study on Indian banks”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Simon, H.A. (1955), “A behavioral model of rational choice”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
pp. 99-118.
Simon, H.A. (1996), The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1996), “Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: a test of
organizational justice theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, p. 161.
Smither, J.W., London, M. and Reilly, R.R. (2005), “Does performance improve following multisource
feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 33-66.
Stannack, P. (1996), “Perspectives on employee performance”, Management Research News, Vol. 19,
pp. 38-40.
Sundaray, B.K. (2011), “Employee engagement: a driver of organizational effectiveness. European”, HR analytics
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 53-59.
Thurston, P.W., Jr. and McNall, L. (2010), “Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 201-228.
Tsui, A.S. and Bruce, B. (1986), “Interpersonal affect and rating errors”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 586-599.
Van der Heijden, B.I. and Nijhof, A.H. (2004), “The value of subjectivity: problems and prospects for
360-degree appraisal systems”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
697
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 493-511.
Varma, A., Denisi, A.S. and Peters, L.H. (1996), “Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal: a field
study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 2, p. 341.
Varma, A., Pichler, S. and Srinivas, E.S. (2005), “The role of interpersonal affect in performance
appraisal: evidence from two samples – the US and India”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 11, pp. 2029-2044.
Wang, P. (2010), “Chasing the hottest IT: effects of information technology fashion on organizations”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 63-85.
Watts, B., Augustine, S. and Lawrence, R.H. (2009), “Teaching quality improvement in the midst of
performance measurement pressures: mixed messages?”, Management in Healthcare, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 209-216.
Wilson, K.Y. (2010), “An analysis of bias in supervisor narrative comments in performance appraisal”,
Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 12, pp. 1903-1933.
Wong, Y.T., Wong, Y.W. and Wong, C.S. (2015), “An integrative model of turnover intention:
antecedents and their effects on employee performance in Chinese joint ventures”, Journal of
Chinese Human Resource Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 71-90.
Wood, S., Braeken, J. and Niven, K. (2013), “Discrimination and well-being in organizations: testing the
differential power and organizational justice theories of workplace aggression”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 617-634.
Zhang, H. and Agarwal, N.C. (2009), “The mediating roles of organizational justice on the relationships
between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in china”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 676-693.
Further reading
Greenberg, J. (1986), “Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluation”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 340-342.
Corresponding author
Anshu Sharma can be contacted at: anshu.sharma@hotmail.co.in
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

HR Analytics and Performance Appraisal System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HR Analytics and Performance Appraisal System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Research Review

HR analytics and performance appraisal system: A conceptual framework for

40 Issue: 6, pp.684-697, https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2016-0084

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Accepted 17 March 2017

P2b. Use of HR analytics in the PA system will be positively related to employees’

3.3 Employees’ satisfaction with the performance appraisal system

3.4 Employees’ willingness to improve performance

relationships (P2b, P3 and P4). Here, P1 explains a negative relationship as to how

5. Discussion and conclusion

Improvement, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 19-27.

analysis”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 709.

You might also like