kuan tita tive

7/27/2019 Kuan Tita Tive

1/15

The interactive role ofperformance appraisal reactions

and regular feedbackBard Kuvaas

Department of Leadership and Organization Management,Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway

Abstract

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 workperformance.

Design/methodology/approach The paper presents the results of a cross-sectional survey of 803employees 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 affectivecommitment. The relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance wassignificant only for employees reporting high levels of perceived regular feedback.

Research limitations/implications The two most important limitations, which are discussed inmore detail at the end of the paper, are the cross-sectional nature of the study and the reliance onself-reported questionnaire data.

Practical implications The positive relationship between PA reactions and affectiveorganizational 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 andsupervisor- or peer-ratings of work performance.

Originality/value The finding of a positive relationship between PA reactions and workperformance only for employees who experience that they receive high levels of regular or day-to-dayfeedback.

Keywords Performance appraisal, Job satisfaction, Norway

Paper type Research paper

In recent years there has been an increased emphasis on user reactions to performanceappraisal (PA) (e.g. Jawahar, 2007). This research interest originates from theobservation that reactions to appraisal and the appraisal process seem to significantlyimpact on the overall effectiveness of appraisal systems (Levy and Williams, 2004).

Murphy and Cleveland (1995) argued that reactions are almost always relevant, andan unfavourable reactions may doom the most carefully constructed appraisal system(p. 314). Still, despite the rhetoric of PA and its impact on commitment and workperformance, these relationships are mostly assumed rather than tested, and Levy andWilliams (2004) called for more field research on the relationship between PA reactions,employee attitudes and behavior. Accordingly, the first purpose of this study was toinvestigate the relationship between PA reactions and affective organizationalcommitment and work performance.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Performanceappraisalreactions

123

Received October 2009Revised January 2010

February 2010Accepted February 2010

Journal of Managerial Psychology

Vol. 26 No. 2, 2011

pp. 123-137

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0268-3946

DOI 10.1108/02683941111102164


2/15

In addition, the outcomes of PA may depend heavily on individual psychological orcontextual factors (Fletcher, 2002; Ilgen et al., 1979; Klein and Snell, 1994). And, sinceinvestigations of individual differences that may influence the relationship betweenPA reactions and work performance can identify conditions under which PA is more or

less effective, this type of research is likely to yield results of practical relevance(Fletcher, 2001). Kuvaas (2006a) responded to this call and reported a positiverelationship between PA reactions and affective organizational commitment, but healso found that the relationship between PA reactions and work performance wasmoderated by employees intrinsic motivation. More specifically, he reported a positiverelationship between PA satisfaction and work performance only for employees withhigh levels of intrinsic motivation. In another study, Kuvaas (2007) found a positiverelationship between perceptions of developmental feedback and goal-setting in PAand performance only for employees with a weak autonomy orientation. In the presentstudy, I investigate whether perceived day-to-day or regular feedback influences therelationship between PA reactions and work performance. On the one hand, it ispossible that high levels of perceived regular feedback will increase the effect ofpositive reactions to PA because it enables more individually tailored PA. On the otherhand, high levels of regular feedback may decrease the effect of PA reactions on workperformance because necessary performance feedback is already provided on a day-today and more informal basis.

Theory and hypothesesThe most frequently measured reaction in PA research has been some form of PAsatisfaction or acceptance (Keeping and Levy, 2000). In the present study, I investigateperceived helpfulness of PA, defined as the extent to which employees perceive thefeedback and goal-setting information involved in PA as informative, understandable,relevant, accurate, and recognizing. Goal-setting and feedback are key PA activities

that are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing theinformation and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley et al., 1990;Fletcher, 2001; Neubert, 1998).

A direct relationship between PA reactions and employee outcomesBoth practitioners and scholars often argue that properly conducted performanceappraisals can provide numerous positive organizational results (Pettijohn et al.,2001), without specifying what is meant by properly conducted. In contrast with sucha mechanistic view of PA as a management tool that is assumed to work as long asone follows the instruction manual, the view that it is the reactions to appraisal and theappraisal process that impact on the overall effectiveness of appraisal systems seemsto dominate the research community (Cawley et al., 1998; Jawahar, 2007; Kavanagh

et al., 2007; Keeping and Levy, 2000; Kleingeld et al., 2004; Kuvaas, 2006a, 2007; Levyand Williams, 2004; Youngcourt et al., 2007).

Goal-setting and feedback are key PA activities in organizations (Earley et al., 1990;Fletcher, 2001; Neubert, 1998) and an important purpose of goal-setting and feedback isto increase individual performance. Meta-analyses suggest that the overall effect offeedback is positive, although the relationship between feedback intervention andperformance is a complex one (Guzzo et al., 1985; Kluger and DeNisi, 1996). Similarly,goal-setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in

JMP26,2

124


3/15

organizational science (Neubert, 1998), even though the relationship betweengoal-setting and performance is moderated by several factors (Locke and Latham,2002). Accordingly, we may expect that employees who perceive that PA is useful interms of goal-setting and feedback also will perform well:

H1. There is a positive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA andwork performance.

PA has the capacity to illuminate how an individual employees behaviour cancontribute to group and organizational goals, and thereby increase affectiveorganizational commitment (Kuvaas, 2006a). Furthermore, Latham (2003) arguedthat the affective and emotional aspects of super ordinate goals may capture thehearts of employees and give people a cause they can rally around (p. 309). Theperception of developmental feedback and goal-setting in PA probably reflectsemployees feeling that PA has assisted in communicating super ordinate strategies,goals and vision, which in turn should increase affective organizational commitment.Still, a relationship between PA and affective commitment to the organization rests onthe assumption that employees perceive that PA is able to clarify how their work isrelated to group and organizational goals or that PA helps communicate organizationalstrategies, goals and vision. Accordingly, simply having taken part in PA should notbe sufficient to increase affective organizational commitment, but we should expect apositive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and affective organizationalcommitment:

H2. There is a positive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA andaffective organizational commitment.

The potential moderating role of regular feedbackKlein and Snell (1994) argued that there is no best way to conduct an appraisal

interview. It depends on the situation, the relationship of the parties involved and theirindividual make-up. Furthermore, Fletcher (2002) claimed that the notion that allappraisees are going to react the same way to appraisal is probably very unsafe, andIlgen et al. (1979) suggested that individual differences probably play a substantial rolein how people interpret appraisal feedback and how they respond to theseinterpretations. Consistent with these arguments, empirical research suggests thatemployees intrinsic motivation (Kuvaas, 2006a) and autonomy orientation (Kuvaas,2007) moderates the relationship between PA reactions and work performance. In thisstudy, I investigate whether employee perception of day-to-day feedback play a similarrole. Since the studies reviewed by Levy and Williams (2004) and later studies (e.g.Kuvaas, 2006a) suggest that there is a direct relationship between PA reactions andorganizational commitment, I limit the discussion of moderating effects to workperformance.

Levy and Williams (2004) refer to the feedback environment of an organization as aproximal variable that is an integral part of the broader performance managementprocess, and argue that factors such as perceived source credibility, frequency andquality feedback should affect appraisees attitudes and behaviors. Here, I suggest thatperceived frequency of regular day-to-day work-related feedback outside formal PAactivities may moderate the relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA andwork performance. First, if employees perceive that they get frequent and continuous


125


4/15

feedback on how they do their job, they may to a greater extent use the limited timeavailable in formal PA activities to ask for more specific and value-added relevant goaland feedback information. Furthermore, to the extent that high levels of perceivedregular feedback reflect that appraisers will have more and better information about

individual appraisees, PA can be tailored to the needs of individual employees and belimited to issues that are not dealt with on a regular basis. Accordingly, I hypothesize:

H3a. The relationship betweenperceived helpfulness of PA and work performanceis moderated by regular feedback such that there will be a positiverelationship only for employees reporting high levels of regular feedback.

Alternatively, high levels of perceived regular feedback may also decrease the effect ofPA reactions on work performance because necessary performance feedback is alreadyprovided on a day-to-day and more informal basis. Then, the value-added of formal PAwould be limited. In contrast, in organizations with a high number of employeescompared to the number of managers, it will be practically difficult for the individualmanager to provide feedback to his or her employees on a more regular basis. In suchcase, PA may provide both the time and space needed for the effective exchange offeedback and information between managers and employees. Similarly, a busy workenvironment could make it very difficult for managers to provide day-to-day feedbackfor all employees. Furthermore, if employees perceive low levels of regular feedback,they may put extra effort into taking advantage of the opportunities provided byformal PA, for instance in terms of getting performance-relevant feedback. To put itdifferently, the performance implications of perceived helpfulness of PA may bestronger for employees who experiences low levels of regular feedback because PAthen can compensate for lack of performance relevant information on a more regularbasis:

H3b. The relationship betweenperceived helpfulness of PA and work performanceis moderated by regular feedback such that there will be a positiverelationship only for employees reporting low levels of regular feedback.

MethodSample and procedureRespondents were drawn from three Norwegian organizations, one bank, onegovernment department and one organization in the pharmaceutical industry. Aquestionnaire was distributed to all employees in the government department and thepharmaceutical organization, and to employees with sales or back office positions inthe bank. Approximately 2,280 employees received the questionnaire by e-mail, ofwhom 1,013 returned complete responses during the spring 2005. The response rate

varied from 42 per cent in the government department to 47 per cent in the bank, withan overall response rate of approximately 44 per cent. The average age of therespondents was 42 years, and approximately 54 per cent were women andapproximately 46 per cent men. About 59 per cent of the respondents had anundergraduate degree or higher education. Approximately 16 per cent of therespondents had some form of managerial responsibility. 210 respondents(approximately 21 per cent) reported that they had not taken part in PA during thelast 12 months and were therefore omitted from the analyses.

JMP26,2

126


5/15


6/15

AnalysesThe data were analyzed in several phases. First, factor analysis (principal componentanalysis with promax rotation) was performed on all multiple scale items to determineitem retention (e.g. Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). Although most of the scales have been

used in prior research, the measure of perceived regular feedback has not been testedfor discriminant validity against the other scales. Therefore, and in order to avoidconfounded measures of the closely-related constructs, relatively stringentrules-of-thumb were applied, i.e. retention of items only with a strong loading of0.50 or higher (Osborne and Costello, 2004), a cross-loading of less than 0.35(Kiffin-Petersen and Cordery, 2003), and a differential of 0.20 or higher between factors(Van Dyne et al., 1994).

Multiple regression analysis was used to test H1 and H2. To test the moderationhypotheses I used hierarchical moderated regression (Cohen and Cohen, 1983).Interaction terms often create multicollinearity problems because of their correlationswith main effects. I thus computed the interaction terms by centering the variablesbefore multiplying them with each other.

ResultsExcept from autonomy orientation, the principal component analysis revealed that allitems fell within the inclusion criteria (see Appendix, Table AI). The facts that all of theitems used to measure perceived helpfulness of PA loaded on the same component, thatno of the items cross-loaded on other components, and a coefficient alpha of 0.93,suggest that the scale is discriminantly valid and internally consistent. The eight itemsused to measure autonomy orientation loaded on three separate components, and thecomponent with the three items producing the highest reliability estimate was used tocompute the autonomy orientation scale.

Means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations and coefficient alpha indicating

scale reliabilities are reported in Table I. Pairwise and multiple variable collinearitywere inspected by collinearity diagnostics in SPSS prior to analysis. The lowesttolerance value was 0.72, which is far from the common cut-off threshold value of 0.10(Hair et al., 1998).

Table II shows that perceived helpfulness of PA is positively related to affectiveorganizational commitment both before (b 0:20, p , 0:001) and after (b 0:13,p , 0:001) perceived regular feedback is included in the model. Accordingly, H2 wassupported, and the nonsignificant interaction term indicates that this relationship isnot moderated by perceived regular feedback.

Table III shows that perceived helpfulness of PA is significantly related to workperformance (b 0:08, p , 0:05), providing initial support for H2. The significantinteraction term (b 0:11, p , 0:001), however, suggest that this relationship is

moderated by perceived regular feedback. To probe the form of the interaction in orderto test H3a and H3b, I followed the procedure recommended by Aiken and West (1991)and plotted low versus high scores on perceived developmental feedback andgoal-setting in PA and perceived regular feedback (one standard deviation below andabove the means) and calculated simple slope tests to determine whether the slopeswere significantly different from each other and from zero. The plot display in Figure 1reveals a positive relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and workperformance only for high levels of perceived regular feedback. The slope for high

JMP26,2

128


7/15

Variable

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.Organization1

0.51

0.50

2.Organization2

0.09

0.29

20.32***

3.Organization3

0.40

0.49

20.83***

20.26***

4.Age

42.84

10.02

0.41***

20.05

20.39*

**

5.Sex

1.47

0.50

0.12**

20.03

20.10*

*

0.22***

6.Managerialresponsibility

1.19

0.39

0.06

20.02

20.05

0.16***

0.14***

7.Education

3.26

0.95

20.48***

0.11**

0.42*

**

20.37***

0.09*

0.09*

8.PHPA

3.48

0.83

0.17***

0.13***

20.25*

**

0.10**

20.04

0.13***

20.15***

(0.93)

9.PRFB

3.19

0.95

0.15***

0.06

20.19*

**

0.06

0.03

0.09*

20.06

0.48***

(0.89)

10.

Intrinsicmotivation

3.49

0.74

0.08*

0.05

20.11*

*

0.13***

0.05

0.18***

20.04

0.30***

0.33***

(0.84)

11.

Autonomyorientation

3.48

0.82

0.12**

0.04

20.15*

**

0.15***

0.15***

0.19***

0.07

0.04

0.11**

0.16***

(0.81)

12

Affectivecommitment

3.34

0.88

0.20***

0.13***

20.28*

**

0.30***

0.09*

0.16***

20.18***

0.39***

0.36***

0.55***

0.03

(0.87)

13.

Workperformance

3.92

0.55

0.23***

0.14***

20.32*

**

0.13***

0.00

0.11**

20.15***

0.24***

0.20***

0.40***

0.37***

0.28***

(0.85)

Notes:n

803;*p,0.05;**p,

0.01;***p,

0.001;PHPA

PerceivedhelpfulnessofPA;PRFB

Perceivedregularfeedback;Sex:Woman

1andMan

2;Managerialrespon

sibility:No

1

andYes

2

Table I.Descriptive statistics,

correlations, and scalereliabilities


129


8/15

levels of perceived regular feedback is significantly different form zero (t 4:

03,p , 0:001) and the two slopes are significantly different from each other (t 3:42,p , 0:001). Accordingly, H3a was supported, whereas H3b was not.

DiscussionUltimately, a central goal of PA is to increase performance at the individual and,subsequently, the organizational level (DeNisi and Gonzales, 2000; Youngcourt et al.,2007). The key finding from this study, however, suggests that the performance

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Organization 1 0.12 * * 0.08 * 0.07 * 0.07 *

Organization 2 0.16 * * * 0.13 * * * 0.12 * * * 0.12 * * *

Age 0.18 * * * 0.18 * * * 0.19 * * * 0.19 * * *

Sex 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04Managerial responsibility 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03Education 20.05 20.04 20.04 20.04Intrinsic motivation 0.52 * * * 0.46 * * * 0.44 * * * 0.44 * * *

Autonomy orientation 20.11 * * * 20.10 * * * 20.11 * * * 20.11 * *

PHPA 0.20 * * * 0.15 * * * 0.15 * * *

PRFB 0.13 * * * 0.12 * * *

PHPA PRFB 0.00DR2 0.400 * * * 0.033 * * * 0.011 * * * 0.000Total R2 0.400 0.433 0.444 0.444

F 66.03 * * * 67.28 * * * 63.30 * * * 57.48 * * *

Notes: aStandardized regression coefficients are shown; n 803; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01;

* * * p , 0:

001; PHPA Perceived helpfulness of PA; PRFB Perceived regular feedback; Sex:Woman 1 and Man 2; Managerial responsibility: No 1 and Yes 2

Table II.Regression results testingthe relationship betweenperceived helpfulness ofPA and affective

organizationalcommitment

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Organization 1 0.21 * * * 0.20 * * * 0.20 * * * 0.21 * * *

Organization 2 0.19 * * * 0.17 * * * 0.17 * * * 0.18 * * *

Age 20.05 20.05 20.05 20.05Sex 20.06 *0.05 20.05 20.05Managerial responsibility 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00Education 20.09 * * 20.09 * 20.09 * 20.08

Intrinsic motivation 0.33 * * * 0.31 * * * 0.31 * * * 0.32 * * *Autonomy orientation 0.31 * * * 0.31 * * * 0.31 * * * 0.30 * * *

PHPA 0.07 * 0.07 0.08 *

PRFB 20.01 0.00PHPA PRFB 0.11 * * *

DR2 0.324 * * * 0.004 * 0.000 0.011Total R2 0.324 0.328 0.328 0.339

F 47.62 * * * 43.04 * * * 38.71 * * * 36.94 * * *

Notes: aStandardized regression coefficients are shown; n 803; * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01;* * * p , 0:001; PHPA Perceived helpfulness of PA; PRFB Perceived regular feedback; Sex:Woman 1 and Man 2; Managerial responsibility: No 1 and Yes 2

Table III.Regression results testingthe moderating role ofperceived regularfeedback on workperformance

JMP26,2

130


9/15

implications of PA are uncertain and complex. First, perceived helpfulness of PA wasonly weakly related to work performance. Second, there was a positive relationshipbetween perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance only for employees whoperceived that they received high levels of regular feedback.

Although some managers and employees may view formal PA as a way tocompensate for low levels of regular day-to-day interaction between managers andsubordinates, the findings of this study indicate that positive PA reactions need to

accompanied by high levels of perceived regular feedback in order to be positivelyrelated to work performance. Accordingly, even though perceived regular feedback isunrelated to work performance, it may represent a necessary condition for PA to resultin increased work performance. Perhaps a certain level of interaction betweenmanagers and subordinates beyond formal appraisal activities may be needed forappraisers to be able successfully to tailor PA to the needs of individual appraisees?Many organizations, at least in Norway, use standardized formats consisting ofdetailed manuals of how appraisers should conduct PA and how to performstandardized PA. Standardized approaches may be chosen for several differentpurposes, for instance, to gather information and document personnel decisions(Youngcourt et al., 2007), but the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation andautonomy orientation (Kuvaas, 2006a, 2007) strengthen the argument that a

one-size-fits-all strategy will probably not increase employee performance. Folgeret al. (1992) also warned against conducting PA in a mechanical or cookbook fashion,and Whiting and Kline (2007) recently presented a person-environment fit approach toPA, where they found a positive relationship between person-performance appraisalcongruency and both turnover intention and organizational commitment.

Consistent with the observation that satisfaction with PA is associated withemployee commitment, perceived helpfulness of PA was positively related to affectiveorganizational commitment in the current study. This particular finding highlights the

Figure 1.The moderating role of

perceived regular

feedback on therelationship between

perceived helpfulness ofPA and work performance


131


10/15

importance of positive PA reactions as the point of departure in positively influencingemployee attitudes.

The contributions of this study should be viewed in the light of several limitations.First, the fact that the data were gathered at one point in time makes it impossible to

draw inferences of causality. Even though the respondents rated their priorexperiences with PA and their current work performance, the possibility of reversecausality cannot be completely ruled out. Research suggests that positive performanceevaluations may lead to more positive PA reactions (e.g. Kavanagh et al., 2007), andthere is a chance that prior performance and positive evaluations have influenced bothperceived helpfulness of PA and current work performance. Consequently,longitudinal studies controlling for prior performance or experimental studies areneeded to come closer to causality inferences on the relationships examined. Second,the reliance on self-reported questionnaire data causes concerns about possiblemono-method bias and percept-percept inflated measures (e.g. Crampton and Wagner,1994). Still, by employment of relatively stringent rules-of-thumb for item retention,mono-method variance should not represent a serious threat. Besides, the onlyconstruct that could have been validly measured by other means than self-report iswork performance. Whereas performance ratings by supervisors help rule out thevalidity threats of self-report and mono-method, however, PA research suggests thatperformance ratings conducted by supervisors may be even more biased thanself-report measures (Levy and Williams, 2004) and that supervisors may lack both theability and the motivation to achieve accurate performance ratings (Murphy, 2008a,2008b). Finally, the relatively modest correlations between perceived helpfulness of PAand work performance (r 0:24) and affective organizational commitment (r 0:39)further indicate that mono-method variance has not heavily influenced the observedrelationships. Still, future studies should preferably use both self-report and supervisoror peer measures of work performance or investigate work settings where objective

performance measures are both available and representative of work performance.A final limitation may be that the data were obtained exclusively from Norwegian

organizations, since relationships may differ in other countries. Most PA research isconducted in the USA, and it is not obvious that the findings from this study cangeneralize to other countries (Fletcher and Perry, 2001). On the more positive side,however, respondents were drawn from three relatively different organizations.Research in other organizations from different industries in other countries iswarranted, however, before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

In conclusion, this study provides support for the position that reactions to PAimpact on the effectiveness of appraisal systems. Still, the relationship betweenperceived helpfulness of PA and work performance seems to be more complex than isoften assumed in PA research. Accordingly, future research on PA reactions and

employee outcomes should continue to investigate potential moderators of thisrelationship, such as individual differences or factors representing the broader socialcontext of PA (Levy and Williams, 2004).

References

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

JMP26,2

132


11/15

Brockner, J., Tyler, T.R. and Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992), The influence of prior commitment toan institution on reactions to perceived fairness: the higher they are, the harder they fall,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 241-61.

Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M. and Levy, P.E. (1998), Participation in the performance appraisal

process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of field investigations, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 615-33.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for theBehavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. (2004), Exploring organizationally directedcitizenship behaviour: reciprocity or Its my job?,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41No. 1, pp. 85-106.

Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994), Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizationalresearch: an investigation of prevalence and effect, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79No. 1, pp. 67-76.

DeNisi, A.S. and Gonzales, J.A. (2000), Design performance appraisal systems to improveperformance, in Locke, E.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior,

Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 60-72.

Earley, P.C., Northcraft, G.B., Lee, C. and Lituchy, T.R. (1990), Impact of process and outcomefeedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance, Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 87-105.

Fletcher, C. (2001), Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda,Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 473-87.

Fletcher, C. (2002), Appraisal: an individual psychological analysis, in Sonnentag, S. (Ed.),Psychological Management of Individual Performance, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 115-35.

Fletcher, C. and Perry, E. (2001), Performance appraisal and feedback: a consideration ofnational culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends, in Anderson, N.,Ones, D., Sinangil, H. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), International Handbook of Industrial,

Work & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Sage, London, pp. 127-44.Folger, R., Konovsky, M. and Cropanzano, R. (1992), A due process metaphor for performance

appraisal, in Staw, B. and Cummings, L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 14, JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 129-77.

Guzzo, R.A., Jette, R.D. and Katzell, R.A. (1985), The effects of psychologically basedintervention programs on worker productivity: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology,Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 275-91.

Hair, J.F.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,5th ed., Maxwell Macmillan International, New York, NY.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, M.S. (1979), Consequences of individual feedback onbehavior in organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 349-71.

Jawahar, I.M. (2007), The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal

reactions, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 735-54.

Kavanagh, P., Benson, J. and Brown, M. (2007), Understanding performance appraisalsatisfaction, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 132-50.

Keeping, L.M. and Levy, P.E. (2000), Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling,and method bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 708-23.

Kiffin-Petersen, S. and Cordery, J.L. (2003), Trust, individualism and job characteristics aspredictors of employee preference for teamwork, International Journal Human Resource

Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-116.


133


12/15

Klein, H.J. and Snell, S.A. (1994), The impact of interview process and context on performance

appraisal interview effectiveness, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 6, pp. 160-75.

Kleingeld, A., Van Tuijl, H. and Algera, J.A. (2004), Participation in the design of performance

management systems: a quasi-experimental field study, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 831-51.

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, pp. 254-84.

Kuvaas, B. (2006a), Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and

moderating roles of motivation, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 504-22.

Kuvaas, B. (2006b), Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: the roles of

pay administration and pay level, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3,pp. 365-85.

Kuvaas, B. (2007), Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance

appraisal and work performance, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 378-97.Latham, G.P. (2003), Goal setting: a five-step approach to behavior change, Organizational

Dynamics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 309-18.

Levy, P.E. and Williams, J.R. (2004), The social context of performance appraisal: a review and

framework for the future, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 881-905.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002), Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and

task motivation: a 35-year odyssey, American Psychologist, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 705-17.

Martinsen, .L. (2004), The creative personality: a synthesis and development of the Creative

Person Profile, paper presented at the 112th meeting for the American Psychological

Society, Honolulu, HI.

May, T.Y., Korczynski, M. and Frenkel, S.J. (2002), Organizational and occupational

commitment: knowledge workers in large corporations, Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 775-801.

Meyer, J.P. and Allan, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and

Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and

consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.

Murphy, K.R. (2008a), Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of

job performance, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 148-60.

Murphy, K.R. (2008b), Percpectives on the relationship between job performance and ratings of

job performance, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 197-205.

Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,Organizational, and Goal-based Perspectives, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Neubert, M.J. (1998), The value of feedback and goal setting over goal setting alone and

potential moderators of this effect: a meta-analysis, Human Performance, Vol. 11 No. 4,pp. 321-35.

Osborne, J.W. and Costello, A.B. (2004), Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal

component analysis, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 9 No. 11,available at: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v9&n11

JMP26,2

134


13/15

Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L.S., Taylor, A.J. and Keillor, B.D. (2001), Are performance appraisal abureaucratic exercise or can they be used to enhance sales-force satisfaction andcommitment?, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 337-64.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), Organizational citizenship behavior:

construct redefinition, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802.

Whiting, H.J. and Kline, T.J.B. (2007), Testing a model of performance appraisal fit on attitudinaloutcomes, The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 127-48.

Wright, R.P. (2004), Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioralresponses in appraisal research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3,pp. 339-74.

Youngcourt, S.S., Leiva, P.I. and Jones, R.G. (2007), Perceived purposes of performanceappraisal: correlates of individual- and position-focused purposes on attitudinaloutcomes, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 315-43.

About the authorBard Kuvaas is a Professor of Organizational Psychology at the Norwegian School ofManagement. His research interests include micro HRM such as effects of HR-practices andsystems (e.g. performance appraisal, training and development, pay systems, and work teams),compensation and motivation, employee organization relationships, work design, cognitivestyles and decision making, and mood and framing in decision making. Bard Kuvaas can becontacted at: [email protected]


135


14/15

Appendix

Components

Items PHPA AC PRFB WP IM AO

Helps me understand what is expected of me insuch a way that I can contribute toorganizational effectiveness (GS) 0.90Provides clear and direct information about mystanding in relation to the goals of mydepartment (FB) 0.89The feedback I receive helps me understand theorganizations strategy (FB) 0.88Provides me with information aboutorganizational goals (GS) 0.87Helps me understand the organizations visionand strategy (GS) 0.81

Provides clear goals I can direct attention to (GS) 0.80Helps me prioritize between different workactivities (GS) 0.76I see clear coherence between my own work andthe performance of my department (GS) 0.72Provides useful feedback (FB) 0.65The feedback I receive agrees with what I haveactually achieved (FB) 0.50I do not feel emotionally attached to thisorganizationa (AC) 0.87I do not feel like part of the family at myorganizationa (AC) 0.80I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to myorganizationa (AC) 0.80

This organization has a great deal of personalmeaning for me (AC) 0.79I really feel as if this organizations problems aremy own (AC) 0.73I would be very happy to spend the rest of mycareer in this organization (AC) 0.59I receive frequent and continuous feedback onhow I do my job (RFB) 0.89I receive clear and direct information about mywork performance through continuouslyprovided feedback (RFB) 0.89I rarely get feedback, except for formal feedbacksystems such as performance appraisal (RFB) 0.89In my job, Im continuously informed aboutwhat I have done well or what I could have donebetter (RFB) 0.87I know little about what my colleagues thinkabout my work performance (RFB) 0.54I almost always perform better than what can becharacterized as acceptable performance (WP) 0.80I try to work as hard as possible (WP) 0.76

(continued)

Table AI.Principal componentanalysis with varimaxrotation

JMP26,2

136


15/15

ComponentsItems PHPA AC PRFB WP IM AO

I often expend extra effort in carrying out my

job (WP) 0.76I often perform better than can be expected (WP) 0.74The quality of my work is top-notch (WP) 0.73Im very engaged on doing a job while at work(WP) 0.65The tasks that I do at work are enjoyable (IM) 0.89My job is so interesting that it is a motivation initself (IM) 0.85The tasks that I do at work are themselvesrepresenting a driving power in my job (IM) 0.80My job is meaningful (IM) 0.79I almost feel lucky being paid for a job I like thismuch (IM) 0.57The job is sometimes like a hobby to me (IM) 0.56I am more independent than most people (AO) 0.82I have a greater need than most people to makedecisions on the basis of my own independentthinking (AO) 0.80I seek out situations that provide room forindependent decision-making (AO) 0.79I like being told exactly how I should do my joba(AO) 0.67I dont have a strong need to organize my ownschedule at worka (AO) 0.40 0.63I do myself take the main responsibility forwhether I do a good or poor job in differentcontexts (AO) 0.57

Its better to find out things on my own ratherthan having other people tell me (AO) 0.83I dislike rules and routines that limit mypersonal freedom of choice (AO) 0.66Initial eigenvalues 10.43 4.32 3.28 2.41 1.79 1.63 1.44 1.03Percent of variance 25.43 10.54 7.99 5.87 4.37 3.96 3.50 2.52Coefficient alpha for final scales 0.93 0.87 0.89 0.85 0.84 0.81 n.a. n.a.

Notes: aReverse coded; factor loadings less than 0.30 are not shown; values shown in italics are thoseincluded in the final scales; some of the items are shortened owing to limited space; PHPA perceivedhelpfulness of PA; AC affective commitment; PRFB perceived regular feedback; WP workperformance; IM intrinsic motivation; AO autonomy orientation Table AI.


137

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

kuan tita tive

Documents