Performance Appraisal Reactions Research Articles

Impact of performance appraisal reactions on affective organizational commitment and work performance

The objective of the study is to examine the relationship between performance appraisal reactions and employees’ outcome in terms of affective organizational commitment and work performance in Pakistan’s 5 largest banks, which is situated at federal capital city, Islamabad, by using a data of 101 banking employees. The results of the survey show that performance appraisal reaction has a positive impact on organizational commitment, while it has a significant impact on work performance only for those employees whom have been receiving a high level of perceived regular feedback. This positivity describes the importance of performance appraisal reactions in high level of work performance, which was mediated by regular feedback. The results suggest that formal performance appraisal cannot compensate for low levels of regular feedback. The results derive substantial evidence of work performance by organizational commitment and performance appraisal in banking sector.

Ratee Reactions Drive Performance Appraisal Success (and Failure)

Although the authors make strong arguments for both sides of the debate in “Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate,” we argue that performance appraisal reactions were largely overlooked beyond a few exceptions, where the authors either alluded to or explicitly mentioned reactions. For example, the authors explain that one reason organizations have eliminated the forced distribution approach is negative employee reactions. The authors also highlight the importance of managers using appropriate language when delivering performance appraisal ratings in order to improve employee reactions. Despite these exceptions, we believe it is necessary to call more attention to the critical role of ratee reactions in the performance appraisal process. Therefore, our commentary expands on the conversation sparked by Adler et al. (2016) by incorporating ratee reactions.

The Role of Procedural Justice Climate in Reactions to Performance Appraisals

Previous research has established that relationships with authority figures and procedural justice perceptions are important in terms of the way in which employees react to organizational procedures that affect them. What is less clear are the reasons why exchange quality with authorities is related to perceptions of process fairness and the role of procedural justice climate in this process. Based on an integration of leader-member exchange and procedural justice literatures, we test competing perspectives as to the mediators of the relationship between leader-member exchange and performance appraisal reactions, and we investigate the role of procedural justice climate in reactions to appraisals. Results indicate that individual-level perceptions of procedural justice, but not performance ratings, partially mediate the relationship between exchange quality and reactions, and that procedural justice climate is positively related to perceptions of procedural justice and appraisal reactions. These results support a more relational than instrumental view of justice perceptions in the appraisal process, and perhaps other organizational procedures bound by exchange quality with an authority. They suggest that it is essential for managers to actively monitor and manage employee perceptions of process fairness at the group level— across different organizational procedures.

Performance Appraisal Satisfaction

Employee satisfaction with performance appraisal (PA) plays a large role in the perceived effectiveness of PA. We examined the joint effects of feedback sign (positive or negative) and three goal orientation dimensions (learning, performance-prove, performance-avoid) on PA satisfaction. Results revealed the negative relationship between negative feedback and PA satisfaction was stronger for those higher in performance-prove (PPGO), performance-avoid, and learning goal orientation. Additionally, the relationship between positive feedback and PA satisfaction was stronger for individuals low on PPGO and weaker for individuals high on PPGO. Implications for enhancing PA reactions are discussed.

The interactive role of performance appraisal reactions and regular feedback

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to test the relationship between performance appraisal (PA) reactions and employee outcomes in terms of affective organizational commitment and work performance.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents the results of a cross‐sectional survey of 803 employees from three organizations located in Norway. The survey was conducted in 2005.FindingsThe findings reveal that perceived helpfulness of PA was directly related to affective commitment. The relationship between perceived helpfulness of PA and work performance was significant only for employees reporting high levels of perceived regular feedback.Research limitations/implicationsThe two most important limitations, which are discussed in more detail at the end of the paper, are the cross‐sectional nature of the study and the reliance on self‐reported questionnaire data.Practical implicationsThe positive relationship between PA reactions and affective organizational commitment highlights the importance of positive PA reactions. At the same time, the relationship between PA reactions and work performance was moderated by regular feedback, which suggests that formal PA cannot compensate for low levels of regular feedback.Implication for further researchFuture studies could apply longitudinal research designs and supervisor‐ or peer‐ratings of work performance.Originality/valueThe finding of a positive relationship between PA reactions and work performance only for employees who experience that they receive high levels of regular or day‐to‐day feedback.

The Role of Core Self-Evaluations in Predicting Performance Appraisal Reactions

Although performance appraisal reactions have garnered substantial attention in recent years, research has rarely considered the role of individual differences regarding feedback responses. The findings from a sample of 250 military cadres revealed that higher core self-evaluations were positively associated with both higher satisfaction and goal commitment following the performance appraisal discussion. As expected, the opportunity to voice opinion during the appraisal discussion mediated a portion of the hypothesized relationship, suggesting that individuals with high core self-evaluations were more satisfied and motivated because they were more likely to experience having a voice during the appraisal process. Further, contrary to our hypothesis, the results revealed that core self-evaluations also moderated the relationship between voice and goal commitment in that individuals with low self-evaluations were more affected by their perceived voice than were people with high self-evaluations.

The Influence of Perceptions of Fairness on Performance Appraisal Reactions

The success of appraisal systems may well depend on ratees’ perceptions of fairness and reactions to important aspects of the appraisal process. My primary purpose is to integrate the literatures on fairness perceptions and appraisal reactions to test specific, heretofore untested, hypotheses. Consistent with predictions of Sweeney and McFarlin’s (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55:23–40, 1993) two-factor model, results of structural equation modeling indicated that distributive justice influenced satisfaction with performance ratings and procedural justice influenced satisfaction with the appraisal system. Results indicated mixed support for Bies and Moag’s (Lewicki, Blair, Bazerman (eds) Research on Negotiation in Organization, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43–55, 1986) agent-system model as procedural justice (and distributive justice) had more influence on satisfaction with appraisal feedback than components of interactional justice perceptions. The implications of my results are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.

Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling, and method bias.

In this study, the authors attempted to comprehensively examine the measurement of performance appraisal reactions. They first investigated how well the reaction scales, representative of those used in the field, measured their substantive constructs. A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that these scales did a favorable job of measuring appraisal reactions, with a few concerns. The authors also found that the data fit a higher order appraisal reactions model. In contrast, a nested model where the reaction constructs were operationalized as one general factor did not adequately fit the data. Finally, the authors tested the notion that self-report data are affectively driven for the specific case of appraisal reactions, using the techniques delineated by L. J. Williams, M. B. Gavin, and M. L. Williams (1996). Results indicated that neither positive nor negative affect presented method biases in the reaction measures, at either the measurement or construct levels.

Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias.

Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias.