Do managers’ negotiation styles make employees’ relational justice-emotional experiences links sporadic?

Abstract

Purpose Being grounded in interdependence theory, this study aims to address the following research question: Do managers’ negotiation styles (collaborative versus competitive) make employees’ relational justice-emotional experiences links sporadic? Design/methodology/approach Data elicited from N = 139 Pakistani undergraduate students participating in an online scenario-based experiment were used to employ repeated measures analysis and partial least square structural equation modeling techniques. Findings Results suggest that employees’ relational justice is likely to be higher when managers use a collaborative negotiation style than when they use competitive style in performance review meetings. Moreover, per managers’ different negotiation styles, employees’ relational justice perceptions may predict their positive emotions differently. That is, when managers use collaborative negotiation style, employees’ relational justice perceptions may positively predict their hope but not optimism, whereas when managers use competitive negotiation style, employees’ relational justice perceptions may positively predict their optimism but not hope. Furthermore, the positive relationship between employees’ relational justice and their optimism is stronger when their trust in manager is low than when it is high. Originality/value The study is of value for performance management theorists who aim to address the issue of ineffectiveness of the practice through relational means. The study includes the recently explicated concept of relational justice and examines its links with employee emotional reactions to performance reviews. Moreover, the study unveils how managers’ negotiation styles in performance review meetings cause variations in the links between employees’ perceptions of relational justice and their emotional experiences.