predicting employee attitudes and performance …employee...research papers predicting employee...

R E S E A R C H P A P E R S

Predicting Employee Attitudes andPerformance from Perceptions ofPerformance Appraisal Fairness

Paul M. Swiercz, The George Washington UniversityNorman B. Bryan, Presbyterian College

Bruce W. Eagle, St. Cloud State UniversityVictoria Bizzotto, St. Cloud State UniversityRobert W. Renn, The University of Memphis

Abstract

Organizations develop performance appraisal systems to mo-tivate and reward employee performance; however, effec-tiveness of the appraisal system depends on employee reac-tions to the appraisal process and the outcomes they receive.The public service agency in this study developed a perfor-mance appraisal system to increase and reward employeeproductivity. After a two-year trial, the agency wanted toexamine employees' support for continuing the appraisalprocess. Thus, this setting offers a rare opportunity to exam-ine how employee perceptions of performance appraisalfairness (procedural, distributive, and interactional) predict-ed employee reactions to the system including employeeperformance, organizational commitment, supervisory satis-faction, job satisfaction, and pay satisfaction. Findings showprocedural fairness is a significant predictor of each of thedependent variables, while distributive fairness predicts per-formance and organizational commitment. Interactionalfairness predicts supervisory satisfaction and organizationalcommitment.

Introduction

A major concern of public service agencies is con-trolling costs while improving the quality and numberof services provided. One widely accepted notion forimproving individual performance is tying pay to per-formance. According to Lawler (1990), "in many re-

The Business RenaissaiKe Quarterly: Enhancing the Quality of Life at Work 25

spects an effective formula-driven pay for performancesystem is the most credible because it is an automaticway to ensure that pay and performance are in factrelated" (p. 19).

This study examines employee perceptions of aformula-driven performance appraisal system imple-mented by a large public service agency in the South-east. The system was designed to link pay to perfor-mance in order to increase employee productivity. Atthe end of a two-year trial of the appraisal system,administrators asked the researchers to evaluate em-ployee attitudes of the system, including perceptions offairness to determine if employees wanted to continuethe appraisal system.

The administrators who developed the system un-derstood that research has consistently demonstratedthat reliability and validity alone are insufficient toensure the success of a performance appraisal system(Bernardin a Beatty, 1984; Cascio, 1981; Lawler, 1967),and the concept of fairness applies whenever resourcesare allocated among individuals (Rawls, 1971). Em-ployee perceptions of fairness are often critical to ap-praisal acceptance and success (Jawahar, 2007; Narcis-se a Harcourt, 2008; Landy, Barnes, a Murphy, 1978).Research suggests if employees perceive that the ap-praisal system is unfair: a) they may be less willing tomodify their behavior according to performance feed-back (llgen. Fisher, a Taylor, 1979); b) they may beless accepting of financial incentives tied to perfor-mance criteria; and c) the appraisal system may lead todecreased motivation, turnover, and dissatisfactionwith the organization (Dobbins, Cardy, a Platz-Vieno,1990). Many organizations routinely use performanceappraisal scores to determine the distribution of pay,promotions, and other rewards; however, few organiza-tions attempt to evaluate how employee perceptions ofperformance appraisal fairness impact employee atti-tudes and performance.

The Business Renaissance Quarterly: Enhancing the Quality of Life at Work 26

The study's objective is to determine if employeeperceptions of procedural, distributive, and interac-tional fairness of the appraisal system predict employ-ee goal attainment (job performance), job satisfaction,pay satisfaction, satisfaction with one's supervisor, andorganizational commitment.

Previous Research

A number of studies over the years examined ap-praisal fairness. Fairness was initially defined as dis-tributive fairness, "the degree to which rewards andpunishments are related to performance inputs" (Pricea Mueller, 1986, p. 123). Equity theory (Adams, 1965),the theoretical foundation of distributive fairness, isbased on the premise that each employee determinesthe fairness of his allocations, by comparing the ratioof his relative inputs and outcomes to the inputs andoutcomes of others (see also Salimaki, Hakonen, &Heneman, 2009; Scott, Colquitt, and Paddock, 2009).The greater the similarity, the more satisfied the per-sons are and when inequities are perceived, employeesmake behavioral and psychological adjustments to re-solve perceived inequities, including responses to ap-praisal systems (Greenberg, 1990); therefore, percep-tions of fairness are likely to influence attitudes towardthe organization and employee performance.

The earliest studies focused on defining character-istics of the appraisal process that Influenced percep-tions of distributive fairness; however, findings wereinconclusive, but researchers discovered that percep-tions of fairness depended on process variables (Landy,Barnes & Murphy, 1978; Landy, Barnes-Farrell & Cleve-land, 1980). In 1981, Dipboye and de Pontbriand foundthat employees were more receptive to negative evalu-ations when they perceived that the appraisal processwas fair, thus providing the first evidence of two dis-tinct types of fairness, distributive and procedural, in


the context of performance appraisals. Extending thisresearch, Greenberg (1986) confirmed the existence ofthe constructs of distributive and procedural fairnessby using open-ended questionnaires and a Q-sort tech-nique. Procedural fairness is concerned yvith the pro-cedures and policies used to determine outcomes, suchas the performance appraisal score (Cloutier & Vilhu-ber, 2008; Greenberg, 1986; Scott et. al., 2009;Thurston & NcNall, 2010). Some studies suggest thatemployees are more concerned with the fairness ofprocedures than the outcomes of the appraisal process(Greenberg, 1987; Lau and Moser, 2008; Lind & Tyler,1988). Although most research examines three types ofjustice: distributive, procedural, and interactional, re-cently researchers have suggested there may be fourdistinct justice types: distributive, procedural, interac-tional, and informational (Ambrose 6t Shminke, 2009;Jawahar, 2007; Thurston a McNall, 2010).

One stream of research investigated employees'ability to distinguish sources of procedural fairness:organizational policies, procedures, appeals, and su-pervisory fairness in conducting the appraisal (Bies aShapiro, 1987; Cobb, Vest, Hills, Fry, a Tarnoff, 1991;Moorman, 1991; Thurston a McNall, 2010). Subse-quently, the fair treatment of employees by agents ofthe organization was identified as a third type of fair-ness, interactional fairness (i.e., actions taken by man-agers as they implement organizational procedures)(Loi, Yang, a Diefendorff, 2009; Thurston a McNall,2010). The existence of interactional fairness is con-firmed in legal settings (Tyler, 1987), although fewstudies have examined interactional fairness in organi-zational settings (Cobb, et al., 1991; Jawahar, 2007;Thurston a McNall, 2010). Interactional fairness is im-portant because it recognizes that supervisors can in-fluence employee attitudes through interpersonaltreatment (Ambrose a Schminke, 2009; Jawahar, 2007;Loi et. al., 2009; Moorman, 1991; Thurston a McNall,2010).


Another research stream attempted to identify howperceptions of fairness affect employee attitudes. Al-exander and Ruderman (1987),while investigating per-ceptions of procedural and distributive fairness, foundthat procedural fairness contributed more to attitudestoward the job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisors,conflict, and trust In management, while distributivefairness had a stronger relationship with intentions toleave the organization (Cloutier & Vilhuber, 2008;Chiaburu & Lim, 2008).

Konovsky, Folger, & Cropanzano, (1987) found thatprocedural fairness is more important to organizationalconnnnitment, and distributive fairness is more im-portant to pay satisfaction (Cloutier & Vilhuber, 2008;Chiaburu & Lim, 2008) and satisfaction with the ratingreceived (Jawahar, 2007). Employees who believe theprocedures are .fair also experience higher commitmentwith their organizations and, consequently, performbetter (Lau and Moser, 2008).

Later research, including additional outcome varia-bles, found that procedural fairness is important totrust in one's supervisor (Chiaburu & Lim, 2008), anddistributive fairness Is Important to satisfaction with apay raise (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). These findingswere supported in a study by McFarlin & Sweeney(1992) which demonstrated that perceptions of distrib-utive fairness are more highly correlated with pay satis-faction and promotion satisfaction, while proceduralfairness is more important for organizational commit-ment and other attitudes requiring a longer perspective(Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky, Folger, & Cro-panzano, 1987; Greenberg, 1987; Lind & Tyler, 1988).

In addition to examining the main effects of proce-dural and distributive fairness, a few studies found aninteraction effect between procedural and distributivefairness (Cropanzano & Folger, 1989; Greenberg, 1987;

The Business Renaissance Cluarterly: Enhancing the Quality of Life at Work 29

McFarlin a Sweeney, 1992). If employees believe theprocedure itself is fair, they may be willing to acceptsome injustice in the outcomes (Sabeen it Mehboob,2008). Interactions suggest that when procedures areperceived as fair, even if rewards are low, employeesare likely to have higher commitment and that whenprocedures are perceived as unfair and rewards arelow, commitment is likely to be low (Lau a Mosser,2008). Employees are also less likely to blame theirorganization for low rewards if procedures are found tobe fair (Lau, Wong, a Eggleton, 2008).

Managers are concerned with how perceptions offairness affect employee reactions to the appraisal sys-tem and subsequently affect satisfaction, commitment,and performance, yet few field studies have examinedthese relationships (Jawhar, 2007; Thurston a McNall,2010). Now field research must determine how differ-ent types of fairness impact various attitudes and per-formance (Folger a Konovsky, 1989; Jawahar, 2007;Thurston a McNall, 2010). This study provides the op-portunity to examine the impact of employee percep-tions of procedural, distributive, and interactional fair-ness on organizational commitment, job satisfaction,pay satisfaction, satisfaction with one's supervisor, andperformance. Based on previous research, the follow-ing propositions are examined:

1. Employees can distinguish between fairness of ap-praisal procedures established by the organization(procedural fairness) and the supervisor's imple-mentation of the procedures (interactional fair-ness) (Choi, 2008; Cobb et al., 1991; Jawahar,2007; Thurston a McNall, 2010).

2. Procedural fairness will be the strongest predictorof organizational commitment (Folger a Konovsky,1989).

3. Distributive fairness will be the strongest predictorof pay and job satisfaction (Lau et al,, 2008; Forretand Love, 2008; Folger a Konovsky, 1989).


4. Interactional fairness will be the most importantpredictor of supervisory satisfaction (Jawahar,2007; Moorman, 1991; Thurston a McNall, 2010).

5. Distributive fairness will be the most importantpredictor of performance (Greenberg, 1986).

Methodology

Subjects

The sample included 230 professional employees ina state public services agency who participated in atwo-year trial of a new performance appraisal system.At the end of the second year, the appraisal systemwas evaluated using a combination of focus group in-terviews and survey feedback. Of the 230 potentialrespondents, 219 chose to participate; however, 23surveys were not included due to missing information,yielding a response rate of 85% (n=196).

All respondents have at least a bachelor's degree;66 percent have a master's degree and eight percenthave studied at the post-masters level. Forty-four per-cent of the sample is females, and the average tenurewith the organization is 13.2 years.

Procedure

Questionnaires were distributed to employees attheir worksites. Employees were allowed to completethe surveys at work or away from work and had theoption of returning the surveys through the office mailor mailing the completed survey directly to the re-searchers. Participation was voluntary and confidenti-ality was assured. Survey packets included a cover let-ter from the chief executive officer endorsing the re-search project, the survey, instructions, and a returnenvelope. The organization provided performancescores, negotiated goals, and goal attainment scoresfor each employee, which were later matched with

The Business Renaissance Quarterly: Enhancing the Quality of Life at Work 3I

each employee's questionnaire. In order to match or-ganizational data to specific questionnaires, employeeswere asked to provide the name of their work unit andthe last four digits of their social security number.

Performance Appraisal System

The performance appraisal system was developedexclusively for this public service organization. Thissystem was designed to communicate clear perfor-mance expectations and to link financial incentives tospecific objective performance criteria (Latham & Yukl,1975). Frequency of evaluations (Landy et al., 1978)was controlled by evaluating all employees at the sametime each year. All supervisors were promoted fromthe incumbent job, which controlled for supervisor fa-miliarity with the job (Greenberg, 1986; Landy et al.,1978).

Employee and managerial understanding of the ap-praisal system, which has been cited as an importantfactor in appraisal fairness (Whiting, Kline, a Sulsky,2008; Dobbins et al., 1990), was controlled by exten-sive training for all employees and managers. Focusgroup interviews assured the researchers that all par-ticipants understood the process and criteria for evalu-ation. Research has proven that sufficient informationon performance appraisal criteria increases satisfactionwith the performance appraisal system (Salimaki et al,2009).

The consistent application of evaluation standards(Greenberg, 1986) was controlled by clearly designedstandards. To remove as much bias as possible, theperformance appraisal system utilized three perfor-mance standards. At the end of each year, a compo-site performance appraisal score was calculated fromthe weighted summation of the three performancestandards, including a work standards rating, a processreview standard, and an outcome standard. The work


Standards rating indicated how well the employee fol-lowed established procedures and policies. The pro-cess review standard was based on the supervisor'sevaluation of ten work samples drawn randomly fromall of the employee's assignments in the current year.Work samples were evaluated against four criteria andan average of all work sample scores and the rating wasweighted as 40 percent of the overall performancescore.

The outcome standard was measured as the num-ber of assignments successfully completed compared tothe individual's goal. Goal attainment was a criticalcomponent of the appraisal process, accounting for 60percent of the employee's overall rating. Landy et al.(1978) suggest that making performance evaluationcontingent upon goal setting increases the acceptabil-ity of the performance appraisal system. Allowing sub-ordinates to participate in setting goals enhances em-ployees' commitment to, and satisfaction with thegoals (Barsky, 2008).The usefulness of performanceappraisal systems also increases when goals are setwith manager assistance (Whiting et al., 2008). Thus,production goals were negotiated annually between theemployee and the immediate supervisor (Latham aMarshall, 1982; Latham a Saari, 1979) and were speci-fied in writing (Locke a Latham, 1984). To ensure thatthe negotiation process resulted in realistic goals whichincorporated the unique circumstances of each individ-ual's job, all supervisors and employees received goalsetting training (Erez a Arad, 1986). If the employeeand supervisor failed to reach an agreeable goal, eithercould initiate the goal appeal process. On a daily basisemployees recorded their production in a computerizedtracking system. This system provided constant andimmediate goal attainment feedback to each employee(Ivancevich a McMahon, 1982).

At the end of the appraisal year, the employee'sperformance appraisal score and the extent to which


employees nnet or exceeded their goals determinedtheir annual bonus (a percentage of their annual sala-ry); seventy-four percent achieved the largest possiblebonus.

Measures

Seven scales and four single items were analyzed.These scales can be organized into three categories: a)scales measuring procedural, distributive, and interac-tional fairness, b) scales measuring job satisfaction,supervisory satisfaction, and pay satisfaction and onescale measuring organizational commitment, c) singleItems measure the employee's age, gender, tenure,' andperformance appraisal score.

Procedural, distributive and interactional fairness

The fairness items were adapted fronn previouslydeveloped fairness Instruments. Items were chosen toconform to the literature's definitions of fairness (Fol-ger & Konovsky, 1989). Procedural fairness consists offour items asking employees to indicate the fairness ofprocedures used to evaluate work standards, processreview standards, the overall performance score, andthe fairness of the formula used to calculate Individualbonuses. All items, except the procedural fairnessitenns, used a seven-point, seven-anchor, Likert-typeresponse format. The procedural fairness items used afive-point, five-anchor response format. Distributivefairness consisted of six Itenns, adapted for this sannplefrom the Price and Mueller Distributive Job Index(1986). These Items ask ennployees to Indicate howwell performance scores accurately reflected their per-formance. Interactional fairness consisted of five itemsthat measure how fairly the employee was treated bytheir immediate supervisor in the appraisal process.

Attitudes toward the organization. The survey in-cluded the nine-item version of the Organizational


Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, a Porter,1979). Pay satisfaction, supervisory satisfaction, andjob satisfaction were measured with these subscalesfrom the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman a Oldham,1980).

Analytic Technique

The 15 fairness items were factor analyzed usingprincipal components analysis with an oblique rotation(Hair, Black, Babin, a Anderson, 2010) (see Table 2).Normality was assessed and supported with a studen-tized residual analysis (Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter, aLi, 2005). Means, standard deviations, and correlationsare reported in Table 1. Internal consistency of eachscale was assessed using Cronbach's alpha (see Table 1below).

In the second stage of analysis, attitudes towardthe organization, which may be influenced by proce-dural, distributive, and supervisory fairness, were sub-jected to hierarchical regression analysis (Folger aKonovsky, 1989; Kutner et al., 2005). This analysis isused to determine which variable, procedural, distribu-tive, or interactional fairness, accounts for the mostvariance in organizational commitment, job satisfac-tion, pay satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, and per-formance.

Hierarchical regression allows the researcher tospecify the order in which the variables enter the re-gression equation (Folger a Konovsky, 1989; Kutner etaU, 2005). Analysis followed the suggestion of Cohenand Cohen (1983) that main effects should be testedbefore entering interaction terms; therefore, a four-step analysis was performed for each of the five out-come variables. In the first step age, tenure, and gen-der were entered first to control for inflation or sup-pression that may influence relationships between in-dependent and dependent variables (McFarlin a


Sweeney, 1992; Staines, Pottick, and Fudge, 1986). Inthe second step, procedural, distributive and interac-tional fairness were entered. The third step containedthree two-way interaction terms and the fourth stepcontained one term to test for a three-way interaction.

Varfebles

Interactional Fairness

ProcMlural Fairness

Distributive Fairness

OrganizationalCommitment

Pay Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction

Supervisory Satisfaction

Performance"

Age

Tenure

Gender«

Mean

4.28

3.26

3.08

3.40

3.96

4.S9

4.54

6.53

43.72

13.2

1.56

TABUI

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for All Variables*

s.d.

1 . «.96

1.11

.83

1.65

1.37

1.68

1.63

8.03

7.73

.49

(.85)

.34

.32

.34

.11

.24

.82

.14

-.25

-.20

.21

2

(.76)

.54

.34

.24

.40

.46

.04

.02

.07

.06

3

(.74)

.33

.08

.27

.39

.44

.01

.02

.10

(.881

.26

.59

.37

.07

-.14

..18

.12

5

1.911

.17

.19

.00

..01

..07

..09

(.77)

.33

.02

.04

..04

..09

(.84)

.14

. 1 !

.,13

..11

1.»

..01 1.00

.10 .(3 1.00

.03 .34 .35

• Correlations greater than . 18 are significant a p*.O1. Reliability coefficients for multi-iteni scalss are on the ma-ndiagonal. " Performance measured on an 8 point scale. < For Gender 1 > man and 2 • woman.

Results

The factor loadings of the principle componentsanalysis demonstrate that the fairness items form threedistinct measures of fairness, with each item loading onthe appropriate factor (see Table 2 - next page). Inthis sample, employees are obviously able to distin-guish between the fairness of the procedures estab-lished by the organization and the fairness of the su-pervisor's implementation of the procedures.

Table 3 below displays the results of the hierar-chical regression analysis and the order In which thevariables were entered into the regression equations.None of the demographic variables were significantpredictors of any of the dependent variables. Proce-dural fairness significantly predicts each of the de-


pendent.variables, although distributive fairness Is astronger predictor of performance and Interactional

TABLE 2Factor Analysis of Fairness Measures - Rotated Factor Patterns

Questionnaire Items

My immediate supervisor is always fair with me.My immeáate supervisor treats all subordinates as equats.My immediate supervisor stands up for me with "higher ups."Myimmeá'ate supervisor encourages nrie to participate in

important decisions.Supervisors feel they must find something wrons or they

aren't.doing their job.

Counselors receiving the maximum tevslof incentive payare, in fact, the best counselors.

Incentive pay awards accurately reflect an individual'sjob perfonmance.

My last performance evaluation was a true indicator of myactual performance.

Under the Counselor Performance A f ^ a i u l Programrewards are based on total job performance.

Counselors receiving the minimum levsl of incentive payare the poorest counselors.

t am very satisfied with the last performance evaluation1 received.

Please indicate fairness of the procedures to evaluateWerkstandards.

Please indicate fairness of the procedures to evaluateprocess standards.

Please indicate fairness of the procecures to evaluateoutcome standards.

The formula used to calculate incentive pay is fair.

EigenvaluesPercentage of Variance Explained

InteractionalFairness

.89

.85

.81

.75

.58

•4.94.28

DistributiveFairness

.77

.73

.68

.63

.58

.44

2.24.22

Proce(kjralFairness

.90

.83

.72

.44

1.38.19

fairness is a stronger predictor of supervisory satisfac-tion. All three types of fairness are significant predic-tors of organizational commitment, with proceduralbeing the strongest predictor, followed by distributiveand then interactional fairness. No interaction termswere significant.

Discussion

In support of proposition one, factor analysis clear-ly indicates that employees can distinguish betweenthe sources of organizational and supervisory fairness.Previous studies, not distinguishing between procedural


and interactional fairness, found that procedural fair-ness predicts supervisory satisfaction. But, when inter-

TABLE 3

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

IndependentVariables

Stepl

Age

Gender

Tenure

R"

Step 2

ProceduralFaimess

DistributiveFaimess

InteractionalFaimess

R'

Step 3

R' 2-wayinteraction

Step 4

R'3-wayinteraction

F

PaySatisfaction

-.01

-.47

.03

.02

.39'

-.04

.05

.05"

.02

.00

1.65

10

• p < . 0 5"p-< .01••• p'.OOl

JobSatlsfactio

n

.00

-.28

.00

.01

.45"

.07

.12

.17"

.01

.00

3.69"'

10

Performance

-.04

.07

.03

.03

-.44"

.77"'

.11

.22"

.01

.00

5.23'"

10

SupervisorySatisfaction

-.02

..12

.01

.01

.29"

.08

.93""

. 7 1 "

.00

.00

42.17'"

10

OrsanlzadonalCommitment

-.00

-.15

.03

.03

.15'

.13'

.11'

.18"

.01

.00

4.36"'

10

actional fairness is included, it is a stronger predictorof supervisory satisfaction, which is consistent with thefinding of Jawahar (2007) and was predicted in proposi-tion four. However, procedural fairness is also a signifi-cant predictor of supervisory satisfaction.

Laboratory research has demonstrated that somepeople tend to care less about procedures when out-comes are positive. This study demonstrates that inreal organizations, even when outcomes are positive,procedures are important. The findings support thenotion that employees are more concerned with fairprocedures than with the outcome of the appraisal


(Konovsky, Folger, & Cropanzano, 1987; Greenberg,1987). According to proposition two, procedural fair-ness was the most important predictor of organization-al commitment, while contrary to proposition three,procedural fairness was the only significant predictorÍFor pay satisfaction and job satisfaction. Obviously, inthis organization, the policies and procedures of theappraisal system are more influential for satisfaction.The fact that distributive fairness did not predict paysatisfaction may be due to the way the bonus was de-termined mathematically based on the appraisal scoreand the percentage of productivity that exceeded theemployee's goal. Distributive fairness was built intothe appraisal process.

As expected, distributive fairness is the most im-portant predictor of performance. The structure of theappraisal system clearly informed employees of theirperformance goals and the system allowed employeesto track their progress daily; therefore, the distributionof rewards was not dependent upon a supervisor's sub-jective determination of the outcome or the amount ofthe reward, the amount was based on a mathematicalcalculation. A surprising finding Is, however, the nega-tive regression weight for procedural fairness in pre-dicting job performance. Since the procedural and dis-tributive interaction term is not significant, the nega-tive weight may Indicate a suppressor variable (Kutneret al., 2005). If procedural fairness is a suppressor var-iable, low perceptions of procedural fairness are sup-pressing performance. Unexpected negative weightsmay also result from multicoUinearity (Kutner et al.,2005); however, in this study the correlation betweenprocedural and distributive fairness is .54, which ismuch lower than the range of .67 to .77, reported inother studies of procedural and distributive fairness(e.g., Jawahar, 2007; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; andTyler, 1984).

Thp Business Renaissance Quarterly: Enhancing the Quality of Life at Work 39

All three types of fairness were found to be signifi-cant predictors for organizational commitment, withprocedural having the largest weight, followed by dis-tributive, then interactional fairness. This finding isconsistent with McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) and Alex-ander and Ruderman (1987) who found that both pro-cedural and distributive fairness are significant predic-tors of organizational commitment.

Contrary to other studies, the results of the regres-sion analysis did not indicate any significant interactionterms. Cohen and Cohen (1983) warn that this type ofhierarchical regression analysis may under-estimate theeffects of interaction. Despite this warning this analyt-ic approach was considered by the researchers to bethe most appropriate to study the main effects of thethree types of fairness. In summary, the results pro-vide evidence that the three types of fairness have dif-ferent effects on the dependent variables used in thisstudy (Alexander a Ruderman, 1987; Jawahar, 2007).

Since the data are cross-sectional, the results mustbe accepted with care. Longitudinal data, collectedbefore, during, and after the implementation of theappraisal system may have provided a better under-standing of how perceptions of fairness developed andchanged throughout the trial. Because the data werecollected at the end of the two-year trial, employeeperceptions of fairness may have been influenced byperformance scores or treatment received from super-visors near the end of the trial period. The use of self-report questionnaires may have resulted in commonmethod bias.

Moorman (1991) suggests that because organiza-tions use a variety of systems to select, socialize, de-velop, and motivate employees, researchers need tosystematically look at the fairness of each system sepa-rately. Despite limitations, this study is one of the first,to measure employee perceptions of procedural, dis-


tnbutive, and interactional fairness of a performanceappraisal system and to measure the predictive powerof fairness on a variety of attitudes and performance.The results Indicate that procedural fairness is of pri-mary importance for performance appraisal systems inwork settings.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz(E(j.), A(dvances in experimental social psychology (VoL 2, pp.267-299). New York: Academic Press.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justicejudgments in organizational justice research: A test of media-tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491-500.

Alexander, S., 6 Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural anddistributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Re-search, 1, 177-198.

Barsky, A. (2008). Understanding the ethical cost of organizationalgoal-setting: A review and theory development. Journal of Busi-ness Ethics, 81(1), 63-81.

Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal:Assessing human behavior at work, Boston, MA: Kent PublishingCompany.

Bies, R. J., a Shapiro, D. L. (1988). The voice and justification: Theirinfluence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 31(3), 676-685.

Cascio, W. F. (1981). Fair personnel decision making. In C. J. Broth-erton (Ed.), Towards fairness in selection and placement pro-cesses. London: Wiley.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Lim, A. S. (2008). Manager trustworthiness or in-teractional justice? predicting organizational citizenship behav-iors. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 453-467.

Choi, J. (2008). Event justice perceptions and employees' reactions:Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93(3), 513-528.

Cloutier, J., a Vilhuber, L. (2008). Procedural justice criteria in sala-ry determination. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 713-740.

Cobb, A. T., Vest, M. J., Hills, F. S., Fry, F., a Tarnoff, K. A (1991,October). Procedural justice: Source attributions and group ef-fects in performance evaluations. Southern Management Associ-ation Proceedings, 278-280.

Cohen, J., a Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regres-sion/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.),Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.


Cropanzano, R. & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and taskdecision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74(2), 293-299.

Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employeereactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), 248-251.

Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingencyapproach to appraisal satisfaction: An initial investigation ofthe joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal char-acteristics. Journal of Management, 16(3), 619-632.

Erez, M., Et Arad, R. (1986). Participative goal setting: Social, moti-vational, and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology,71,591-597. .

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and dis-tributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy ofManagement, 32(1), 115-130.

Forret, M., Love, M.S.(2008). Employee justice perceptions andcoworker relationships. Leadership and Organization Develop-ment Journal, 29(3), 248-260.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of perfor-mance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340-342.

Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in paymentdistributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of AppliedPsychology, 72(1), 55-61.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, andtomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-432.

Hackman, J. R., a Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading,tAA: Addison-Wesley.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C, Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonPrentice Hall..

ilgen, D. R., Fisher, CD., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences ofindividual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 64, 349-371.

ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1982). The effects of goal set-ting external feedback, and self-generated feedback on out-come variables: A field experiment. Academy of ManagementJournal, 25, 359-372.

Jawahar, i. M. (2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness onperformahce appraisal reactions. Journal of Labor Research, 28,735-754.

Konovsky, M. A., Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative ef-fects of procedural and distributive justice on employee atti-tudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 15-24.

Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., Li, W. (2005). AppliedLinear Statistical Models. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates ofperceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 751-754.


Landy, F. J., Barnes-FarreU, J., (t Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceivedfairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(3), 355-356.

Latham, G. P., a Marshall, H. A. (1982). The effects of self-set, par-ticipatively set and assigned goals on the performance of gov-ernment employees. Personnel Psychology, 35, 299-404.

Latham, G. P., a Saari, L. M. (1979). Importance of supportive rela-tionships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 151-156.

Latham, G. P., a Yukl, G. A. (1975). Assigned versus participatorygoal setting with educated and uneducated woodworkers. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 60, 299-302.

Lau, C. M., a Moser, A. (2008). Behavioral effects of nonfinancialperformance measures: The role of procedural fairness. Behav-ioral Research in Accounting, 20(2), 55.

Lau, C. M., Wong, K. M., a Eggleton, I. R. C. (2008). Fairness of per-formance evaluation procedures and job satisfaction: The roleof outcome-based and non-outcome-based effects. Accountingand Business Research, 38(2), 121.

Lawler, E. E. (1967). The multitrait-multirater approach to measur-ing managerial job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,51, 369-381

Lawler, E. E. (1990). Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategiesand Pay Systems, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lind, E. A., a Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of socialjustice. New York: Plenum.

Locke, E. A., a Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal-setting: A motivationaltechnique that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Loi, R., Yang, J., a Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Four-factor justice anddaily job satisfaction: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 94(3), 770-781.

McFarlin, D. B., a Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and proceduraljustice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organiza-tional outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626-637.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justiceand organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptionsinfluence employee citizenship. Journal of applied Psychology.76(6), 845-855.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., a Porter, L. W. (1979). The measure-ment of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Be-havior, 14, 224-247.

Narcisse, S., a Harcou't, M. (2008). Employee fairness perceptions ofperformance appraisal: A Saint Lucian case study. The Interna-tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(6), 1152-1169.

Price, J. L., a Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizationalmeasurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing Inc.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.


Sabeen, Z., & Mehboob, S. A. A. (2008). Perceived fairness of andsatisfaction with employee performance appraisal and its impacton overall job satisfaction. The Business Review, Cambridge,10(2), 185.

Salimaki, A., Hakonen, A., a Heneman, R. L. (2009). Managers gener-ating meaning for pay. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(2),161.

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., a Paddock, E. L. (2C09). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The roleof managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 94(3), 756-769.

Staines, G. L., Pottick, K. J., a Fudge, D. A. (1986). Wives' employ-ment and husbands' attitudes toward work and life. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78, 118-128

Thurston, Jr. P. W. a McHall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of per-formance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology,25(3), 201-228.

Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived jnjustice in defendant'sevaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Re-view, 18(1), 51-74.

Tyler, T. R. (1987). Procedural justice research. Social Justice Re-search, 1(1), 41-65.

Whiting, H. J., Kline, T. J. B., a Sulsky, L. M. (2008). The perfor-mance appraisal congruency scale: An assessment of person-environment fit. International Journal of Productivity and Per-formance Management, 57(3), 223-236.

Marjorie L. Icenogle is a Professor in the Department of Man-agement at the University of South Alabama, teaching pri-marily in the areas of human resources and strategic man-agement. She received her Ph.D. in Business Administrationand an M.S. in Industrial Relations from Georgia State Univer-sity in Atlanta, Georgia. She has more than 20 years of busi-ness and management experience including over ten years atThe Coca-Cola Company in Atlanta. Dr. Icenogle has providedconsulting services to such organizations as The Coca-ColaFoundation, BellSouth, The Coca-Cola Company, the State ofGeorgia, The City of Mobile, The Center for Healthy Commu-nities at the University of South Alabama, and Volunteers ofAmerica. Her research has been published in the Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of So-cial Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and LaborLaw Journal. She is the coauthor of Statistical Quality Con-trol Using fxce/j_second edition.^ published by ASQ QualityPress.


Paul M. Swiercz is a Professor and past Chairman of the De-partment of Management at The George Washington Universi-ty in Washington D.C. Dr. Swiercz has published more than35 refereed research articles; his case studies on Home Depotand Delta Airlines have appeared in six best-selling strategytext books. Dr. Swiercz served as editor (1998-2002) of thejournal Human Resource Planning and is director of the Stra-tegic HRM Partnership Project at GWU, developer of the SWIFLearning (Student Written - Instructor Facilitated Case Writ-ing) and co-developer of the Cognitive intrusion of WorkScale (CtW). Dr. Swiercz is the founder and principal in thefirm Executive Selection and Development International(ESDi) and developer of the workshop Strategic BusinessThinking: A Skill Building Workshop for Competitive Think-ers.

Norman B. Bryan is the Director of Institutional Research andAssessment at Presbyterian College. Dr. Bryan received hisdoctorate from Georgia State University in Human ResourceDevelopment. Prior to his current position he taught in theDepartment of Management at Georgia State University anddirected the Interdisciplinary Degree Program at the Universi-ty of South Alabama. His research interests include programevaluation, religion in higher education, leadership develop-ment, and modeling student learning for assessment and cur-riculum development. Currently, Dr. Bryan chairs the SouthCarolina Independent Colleges and Universities InstitutionalResearch Group and is a member of the South Carolina Asso-ciation for Institutional Research Executive Committee.

Bruce W. Eagle received his Ph.D. in Business Administrationfrom Georgia State University and possesses both M.B.A. andM.P.A. degrees. Dr. Eagle is a Professor of Management with-in the Herberger Business School at St. Cloud State Universityteaching in the areas of organizational behavior and corpo-rate strategies. He had previously been employed atAmeritech, BellSouth and IBM. He is the author of severalmanuscripts appearing in a variety of journal outlets includingthe Journal of Vocational Behavior, The Journal of SocialPsychology, The international Journal of Human ResourceManagement, and the Journal of Computer Information Sys-tems. In addition. Dr. Eagle coauthored a chapter entitled


Male and Female Interpretations of Bidirectional Work-FamilyConflict Scales: Testing for Measurement Equivalence appear-ing within the book Equivalence in Measurement. His re-search interests include work-family conflict, corporatestrategies and environmental f i t , construct validity studies ofwork attitudes, and predictions of employee performance.

Victoria Bizzotto graduated from St. Cloud State Universitywith a Bachelor of Science in management with an emphasisin Human Resources in 2009. She continued her studies atSCSU until May of 2011, when she graduated with her Masterof Business Administration degree. Throughout her collegecareer, Ms. Bizzotto participated in student organizationssuch as AIESEC and Students in Free Enterprise. She alsoworked as a graduate assistant and completed multiple man-agement internships. Ms. Bizzotto currently works as a Hu-man Resources Business Partner for Target Corporation inMinneapolis, MN.

Robert W. Renn is an Associate Professor with the Depart-ment of Management at The University of Memphis. Dr. Rennholds a doctorate in business administration from GeorgiaState University's College of Business Administration. His dis-sertation research focused on job design and was funded bythe Cotton States Insurance Company. Dr. Renn has workedwith Management Science of America, Georgia Department ofHuman Resources, Scottish Rite Children's Hospital, Auto-Zone, Youth Villages and other organizations. Dr. Renn is anactive member of the Academy of Management and SouthernManagement Association, and has made numerous presenta-tions at annual meetings sponsored by both organizations. Inaddition. Dr. Renn's articles have been published in the Jour-nal of Management, Human Relations, Educational and Psy-chological Measurement, Group and Organization Manage-ment, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Organization-al and Occupational Psychology, Compensation and BenefitsReview and Advances in the Management of OrganizationalQuality. His research interests center on improving work mo-tivation and work performance through self-regulation, goalsetting, performance feedback, and work design.


Copyright of Business Renaissance Quarterly is the property of Business Renaissance Quarterly and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

predicting employee attitudes and performance …employee...research papers predicting employee...

Documents