Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 219–234 | Cite as

Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals

  • Jerald Greenberg
Article

Abstract

One-hundred-seventeen college students performed a task on which they received a negative, neutral, or positive performance evaluation. The evaluations were made by the experimenter who (i) kept a diary documenting subjects' performance, (ii) observed their performance but did not keep a diary, or (iii) made the evaluation on no apparent basis (control). It was found that both the evaluation procedure and the evaluation outcome itself were perceived as being fairer when diaries were used as the basis for making evaluations relative to either subjects in the observation procedure group or the control group. The practical implications of these findings for performance appraisals are considered along with the implications for conceptual work on procedural justice.

Key words

procedural justice organizational behavior social psychology performance appraisal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, pp. 267–299.Google Scholar
  2. Bernardin, H. J., and Beatty, R. W. (1984).Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work, Kent, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. Bernardin, H. J., and Buckley, M. R. (1981). Strategies in rater training.Acad. Manag. Rev. 6: 205–212.Google Scholar
  4. Bernardin, H. J., and Walter, C. S. (1977). Effects of rater training and diary-keeping on psychometric error in ratings.J. Appl. Psychol. 62: 64–69.Google Scholar
  5. Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors.J. Appl. psychol. 64: 410–421.Google Scholar
  6. Buckley, M. R., and Bernardin, H. J. (1980).An assessment of the components of a rater training program. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. DeCotiis, T. A., and Petit, A. (1978). The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions.Acad. Manage. Rev. 3: 635–645.Google Scholar
  8. Dipboye, R. L., and de Pontbraind, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems.J. Appl. Psychol. 66: 248–251.Google Scholar
  9. Folger, R., and Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In Rowland, K., and Ferris, G. (eds.),Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  10. Greenberg, J. (1983a). Overcoming egocentric bias in perceived fairness through self-awareness.Soc. Psychol. Quart. 46: 152–156.Google Scholar
  11. Greenberg, J. (1983b). Self-image versus impression management in adherence to distributive justice standards: The influence of self-awareness and self-consciousness.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 44: 5–19.Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg, J., and Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In Paulus, P. B. (eds.),Basic Group Processes, Springer-Verlag, pp. 235–256.Google Scholar
  13. Homans, G. C. (1961).Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Kleiman, L. S., and Durham, R. L. (1981). Performance appraisal, promotion, and the courts: A critical review.Personnel Psychol. 34: 103–121.Google Scholar
  15. Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., and Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation.J. Appl. Psychol. 63: 751–754.Google Scholar
  16. Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J., and Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up.J. Appl. Psychol. 65: 355–356.Google Scholar
  17. Latham, G. P., and Wexley, K. N. (1981).Increasing Productivity Through Performance Appraisal, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut, J. W., Spence, J. T., and Carson, R. C. (eds.),Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology. General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, pp. 211–239.Google Scholar
  19. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., and Willis, R. H. (eds.),Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 27–55.Google Scholar
  20. Lissak, R. I. (1983).Procedural fairness: How employees evaluate procedures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.Google Scholar
  21. Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third-party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. In Staw, B. M., and Cummings, L. L. (eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  22. Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1975).Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Tyler, T. R., and Caine, A. (1981). The role of distributional and procedural fairness in the endorsement of formal leaders.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41: 642–655.Google Scholar
  24. Walker, L., Lind, E. A., and Thibaut, J. (1979). The relation between procedural and distributive justice.Va. Law Rev. 65: 1401–1420.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jerald Greenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Management and Human ResourcesOhio State UniversityColumbus

Personalised recommendations