Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 117, Issue 3, pp 667–678 | Cite as

Clinical Governance, Performance Appraisal and Interactional and Procedural Fairness at a New Zealand Public Hospital



This paper explores the conduct of performance appraisals of nurses in a New Zealand hospital, and how fairness is perceived in such appraisals. In the health sector, performance appraisals of medical staff play a key role in implementing clinical governance, which, in turn, is critical to containing health care costs and ensuring quality patient care. Effective appraisals depend on employees perceiving their own appraisals to be fair both in terms of procedure and interaction with their respective appraiser. We examine qualitative data from interviews and focus groups, involving 22 nurses in a single department, to determine whether perceived injustices impact on the effective implementation of the appraisal system. Our results suggest that particular issues had been causing some sense of injustice, and most of these were procedural. Potential solutions focus on greater formalisation of the performance appraisal process, and more training for appraisers and appraisees.


Clinical governance Performance appraisal Interactional justice Procedural justice 


  1. Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. (2011). Why we hate performance management and why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54(6), 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional injustice, the sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organisational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Degeling, P. J., Maxwell, S., Ledema, R., & Hunter, D. J. (2004). Making clinical governance work. British Medical Journal, 329, 679–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (3rd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dipboye, R. L., & Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), 248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. (1999). The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluations’ fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 288–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). Procedural justice as a two-dimensional construct: An examination in the performance appraisal context. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 37(2), 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 14, 129–177.Google Scholar
  10. Greenberg, J. (1986a). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenberg, J. (1986b). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In M. H. Bazerman, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organisations (pp. 25–41). Greenwich: JAI.Google Scholar
  12. Hunton, J. E., Hall, T. W., & Price, K. H. (1998). The value of voice in participative decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 788–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ismail, A., Mashkuri, A., Sulaiman, A., & Hock, W. (2011). Interactional justice as a mediator of the relationship between pay for performance and job satisfaction. Intangible Capital, 7(2), 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 2(3), 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21(4), 657–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 751–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Linna, A., Elovainio, M., Van den Bos, K., Kivimaki, M., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2012). Can usefulness of performance appraisal interviews change organizational justice perceptions? A 4-year longitudinal study among public sector employees. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7), 1360–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McSherry, R., & Pearce, P. (2002). Clinical governance: A guide to implementation for healthcare professionals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Ministerial Task Force on Clinical Leadership. 2009. In good hands: Transforming clinical governance in New Zealand. Accessed 8 Nov 2011.
  20. Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal-oriented perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Narcisse, S., & Harcourt, M. (2008). Employee fairness perceptions of performance appraisal: A Saint Lucian case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(6), 1152–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Health Board. 2010. Trends in service design and new models of care: A review. Accessed 4 Mar 2011.
  23. Nieswiadomy, R. (2008). Foundations of nursing research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Nursing Council of New Zealand. 2010. Annual report.,48,0,0,html/Annual-Reports 20 Mar 2011.
  25. Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scally, G., & Donaldson, L. J. (1998). Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England. British Medical Journal, 317(7150), 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schermerhorn, J. (2009). Exploring management. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Singh, R. (2009). Clinical governance in operation - everybody’s business: A proposed framework. Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 4, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behaviour within a labour union: A test of organisational Justice Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tang, T. L. P., & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. J. (1996). Distributive and procedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 61(3), 25–32.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, M., Tracy, K., Renard, M., Harrison, J., & Carroll, S. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson, P. H., & Dalton, G. W. (1970). Performance appraisal: Managers beware. Harvard Business Review, 48(1), 149–157.Google Scholar
  33. Thurston, P., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vasset, F., Marnburg, E., & Furnes, T. (2010). Employees perceptions of justice in performance appraisals. Nursing Management, 17(2), 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Investigating some neglected criteria: The influence of organizational level and perceived system knowledge on appraisal reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wright, L., Barnett, P., & Hendry, C. (2001). Clinical leadership and clinical governance: A review of developments in New Zealand and internationally. Wellington: HIIRC.Google Scholar
  38. Zorn, T. E. (2000). Conducting thematic analyses of interviews and field notes, unpublished paper. Hamilton: Waikato University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Strategy & Human Resource ManagementWaikato Management School, University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Human Resource ManagementMiddlesex Business School, Middlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations