Skip to main content

Performance Appraisal and Job Satisfaction for Workers Without and With Disabilities by Gender

Abstract

This study analyses the effects of performance appraisal on the levels of job satisfaction reported by workers without and with disabilities (aged 16–64) by gender. Particularly, we are interested in investigating the impact of monetary rewards such as pay, bonuses, future raises and potential promotion on job satisfaction by disability status and checking differences by gender. Our data come from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for the years 2004, 2008, 2011 and 2016. We estimate job satisfaction equations running a fixed effect "Probit Adapted OLS" model. We find that males with disabilities are less likely to be satisfied with their jobs when they are subject to performance appraisal with monetary effects (appraisals with both short and long-term rewards explain this result), whereas the opposite result is found for females with disabilities (in the case of receiving long-term rewards). We estimate the association of these performance appraisal schemes with recognition from superiors, and with their efforts, personal advances and pay, and we find a coherent pattern with previous results.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to the existing literature (e.g. Kristensen and Johansson 2008; Bonsang and van Soest 2012; Knott et al. 2017), one of the problem of using self-evaluations of overall happiness or job satisfaction is that individuals from different countries, cultures or socio-economic backgrounds may perceive these questions on satisfaction in different ways, and may use different response scales (i.e. differential item functioning, DIF). To avoid this problem, the use of anchoring vignettes (wherein individuals evaluate, on the same scale, how good or bad are different hypothetical job or life situations) contributes to identifying these interpersonal differentials in response scales (King et al. 2004). In our case, unfortunately we cannot use this technique with the information on performance appraisal included in the SOEP.

  2. 2.

    They also use the created measures of disability from the SOEP to estimate the prevalence of disability for working-age men (aged 21–58) in the western states of Germany between 1984 and 2002. They also compare the employment of the working-age men with disabilities relative to their counterparts without disabilities in Germany and in the United States. They demonstrate the consistency and validity of the combination measure to investigate the impact of different disability policies and policy changes in Germany alone or in comparison with the United States.

  3. 3.

    Similar to Pagan (2010), we have analysed the relationship between disability and health satisfaction in order to test that both variables do not correlate perfectly. For this purpose, we have calculated the relationship between disability and health satisfaction for our samples of reference. We found that 27.1% of people with disabilities (31.02 and 23.46% for males and females, respectively) have a health satisfaction score equal to or over 5 points. This result is even higher than that obtained by Pagan (2010). Similar to Pagan (2010), this percentage for people without disabilities goes up to 89.89% (90.27 and 89.13% for males and females, respectively). These results are also in line with other psychological studies that conclude that the domain of disability extends far beyond health related concerns to encompass the person’s well-being, definition of self and social position (Grimby et al. 1988). Therefore, in studying disability, it is critical not to restrict the notion of job satisfaction to health related issues.

  4. 4.

    For instance, “when we like to apply these models in panel analysis where we want to take into account the panel structure either by assuming that the error terms between different observations of the same individual are correlated (individual random effects) or by introducing individual fixed effects many computational problems appear, when the one dimensional integrals have to be replaced by multi-dimensional integrals, where integration problems tend to become overwhelming (van Praag and Ferrer-i- Carbonell (2006, p. 5)”.

  5. 5.

    The total effect of performance appraisal schemes for people with disabilities -obtained summing the corresponding coefficients on performance appraisal dummies and interactions- show the same gendered pattern.

  6. 6.

    Note that the total effect of performance appraisal schemes on recognitions for people without disabilities corresponds to the set of dummies for performance appraisal in Table 4 not considering the interaction terms.

References

  1. Adams, J. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Addison, J., & Belfield, C. (2008). The determinants of performance appraisal systems: A note (Do brown and Heywood’s results for Australia hold up for Britain?). British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, 521–531.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Agyare, R., Yuhui, G., Mensah, L., Aidoo, Z., & Ansah, I. (2016). The impacts of performance appraisal on employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A case of microfinance institutions in Ghana. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(9), 281–297.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baldwin, M., & Johnson, W. (2006). A critical review of studies of discrimination against workers with disabilities. In W. M. Rodgers (Ed.), Handbook on the economics of discrimination (pp. 119–160). Northampton, MA: Edgar Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baltagi, B., & Song, S. (2006). Unbalanced panel data: A survey. Statistical Papers, 47(4), 493–523.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bonsang, E., & van Soest, A. (2012). Satisfaction with job and income among older individuals across European countries. Social Indicators Research, 105, 227–254.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, M., & Heywood, J. (2005). Performance appraisal systems: Determinants and change. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(4), 659–679.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burgess, S., & Ratto, M. (2003). The role of incentives in the public sector: Issues and evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(2), 285–300.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Burke, R. (1999). Disability and women’s work experiences: An explanatory study. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 19(2), 21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burkhauser, R., & Daly, M. (1998). Disability and work: The experiences of American and German men. Economic Review, 2, 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Burkhauser, R. V., Houtenville, A. J., & Rovba, L. (2006). Accounting for the declining fortunes of working-age people with disabilities. Working paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

  12. Burkhauser, R., & Schroeder, M. (2007). A method for comparing the economic outcomes of the working-age population with disabilities in Germany and the United States. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 127(2), 227–258.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clark, A. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4(4), 341–372.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clark, A., & Oswald, A. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61(3), 359–381.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cornelissen, T., Heywood, J., & Jirjahn, U. (2011). Performance pay, risk attitudes and job satisfaction. Labour Economics, 18, 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Deepa, E., Palaniswamy, R., & Kuppusamy, S. (2014). Effect of performance appraisal system in organizational commitment, job satisfaction and productivity. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 8(1), 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114(497), 641–659.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Franco, L. M., Bennett, S., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Health sector reform and public sector health worker motivation: A conceptual framework. Social Science and Medicine, 54(8), 1255–1266.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Georgellis, Y., & Lange, T. (2007). Participation in continuous, on-the-job training and the impact on job satisfaction: Longitudinal evidence from the German labour market. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(6), 969–985.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gielen, A. C., Kerkhofs, M., & van Ours, J. C. (2010). How performance related pay affects productivity and employment. Journal of Population Economics, 23(1), 291–301.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grimby, G., Finnstram, J., & Jette, A. (1988). On application of the WHO handicap classification in rehabilitation. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 20, 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Grund, C., & Przemeck, J. (2012). Subjective performance appraisal and inequality aversion. Applied Economics, 44, 2149–2155.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grund, C., & Sliwka, D. (2009). The anatomy of performance appraisals in Germany. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(10), 2049–2065.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Heywood, J., Jirjahn, U., & Struewing, C. (2017). Locus of control and performance appraisal. Journal of Economics Behavior and Organization, 142, 205–225.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Heywood, J., & Wei, X. (2006). Performance pay and job satisfaction. Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(4), 523–540.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Huseman, R., Hatfield, J., & Miles, E. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222–234.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. (2003). Managing human resources through strategic partnership. Canada: Thompson.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jenkins, S., & Riggs, J. (2004). Disability and disadvantage: Selection, onset, and duration effects. Journal of Social Policy, 33(3), 479–501.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jirjahn, U., & Poutsma, E. (2013). The use of performance appraisal systems: Evidence from Dutch establishment data. Industrial Relations, 52, 801–821.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Judge, T., Bono, J., Thoresen, C., & Patton, G. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kampkötter, P. (2017). Performance appraisals and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(5), 750–774.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Keeping, L., & Levy, P. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 708–723.

    Google Scholar 

  34. King, G., Murray, C., Salomon, J., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 567–583.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Knott, R., Lorgelly, P., Black, N., & Hollingsworth, B. (2017). Differential item functioning in quality of life measurement: An analysis using anchoring vignettes. Social Science and Medicine, 190, 247–255.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kristensen, N., & Johansson, E. (2008). New evidence on cross-country differences in job satisfaction using anchoring vignettes. Labour Economics, 15, 96–117.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lazear, E. (2000). Performance pay and productivity”. American Economic Review, 90(5), 1346–1361.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lechner, M., & Vazquez-Alvarez, R. (2011). The effect of disability on labour market outcomes in Germany. Applied Economics, 43(4), 389–412.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lengnick-Hall, M., Gaunt, P., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and underutilized: People with disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 255–273.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Levy, P., & Williams, J. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881–906.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Liao, H. (2007). Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance in customer perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 475–489.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lucifora, C. (2015). Performance-related pay and labor productivity. IZA World of Labor, 2015, 152.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lucifora, C., & Origo, F. (2015). Performance-related pay and firm productivity: Evidence from a reform in the structure of collective bargaining. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 68(3), 606–632.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Maddala, G. (1983). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Malo, M., & Pagan, R. (2012). Wage differentials and disability across Europe: Discrimination and/or lower productivity? International Labour Review, 151(1/2), 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  46. McAfee, J., & McNaughton, D. (1997). Transitional outcomes: Job satisfaction of workers with disabilities part one: General job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 8(2), 135–142.

    Google Scholar 

  47. McNabb, R., & Whitfield, K. (2007). The impact of varying types of performance-related pay and employee participation on earnings. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(6), 1004–1025.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Milkovich, G., & Wigdor, A. (1991). Pay for performance: Evaluating performance appraisal and merit pay. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ng, Y. (1997). A case of happiness, cardinalism, and interpersonal comparability. Economic Journal, 107(445), 1848–1858.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pagan, R. (2010). Onset of disability and life satisfaction: Evidence from the German socio-economic panel. European Journal of Health Economics, 11(5), 471–485.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pagan, R. (2011). Ageing and disability: Job satisfaction differentials across Europe. Social Science and Medicine, 72(2), 206–215.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pagan, R. (2014). What makes workers with disabilities happy? The importance of non-pecuniary characteristics. Health Economics, 23(2), 241–247.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pagan, R., & Malo, M. (2009). Job satisfaction and disability: Lower expectations about jobs or a matter of health? Spanish Economic Review, 11(1), 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L., & d’Amico, M. (2001). Characteristics of performance appraisals and their impact on sales force satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pfeifer, C., & Stephan, G. (2018). Why women don’t ask: Gender differences in fairness perceptions of own wages and subsequent wage growth. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Discussion Paper Series. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp11320.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2020.

  56. Prendergast, C. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 7–63.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Prendergast, C. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and incentives. American Economic Review, 98, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Renaud, S. (2002). Rethinking the union membership/job satisfaction relationship: Some empirical evidence in Canada. International Journal of Manpower, 23(2), 137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rowland, C., & Hall, R. D. (2012). Organizational justice and performance: Is appraisal fair? EuroMed Journal of Business, 7(3), 280–293.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rupp, D., Bashshur, M., & Liao, H. (2007). Justice climate past, present, and future: Models of structure and emergence. In F. Dansereau & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 6, pp. 357–396). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplaces disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48(3), 381–410.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Schwartz, N. (1995). What respondents learn from questionnaires: The survey interview and the logic of conversation. International Statistical Review, 63(2), 153–177.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Shantz, A., Wang, J., & Malik, A. (2018). Disability status, individual variable pay, and pay satisfaction: Does relational and institutional trust make a difference? Human Resources Management, 57, 365–380.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Stapleton, D., & Burkhauser, R. (2003). A user’s guide to current statistics on the employment of people with disabilities. In D. Stapleton & R. Burkhauser (Eds.), The decline in employment of people with disabilities, a policy puzzle. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research: Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stone, D., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 352–401.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Terza, J. (1987). Estimating linear models with ordinal qualitative regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 34, 275–291.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Thurston, P., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201–228.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Uppal, S. (2005). Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 26(4), 336–349.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Van Praag, B. (1991). Ordinal and cardinal utility: An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept. Journal of Econometrics, 50(1–2), 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Van Praag, B., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2006). An almost integration-free approach to ordered response models. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper nº 2006–047/3.

  71. Van Praag, B., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2008). Quantified happiness: A satisfaction calculus approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Van Praag, B., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51(1), 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Verbeek, M., & Nijman, T. (1992). Non-response in panel data: The impact on estimates of a life cycle consumption function. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 7(3), 243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wagner, G., Frick, J., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German socio-economic panel study (SOEP): Scope, evolution and enhancements. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 127(1), 139–169.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Whitman, D., Van Rooy, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 41–81.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Witte, R. H., Philips, L., & Kakela, M. (1998). Job satisfaction of college graduates with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(3), 259–265.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Pagan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9

Table 7 Transformed values of the job satisfaction variable (applying Terza 1987) used in Table 2 (POLS individual fixed effects) by gender, and sample distribution for non-disabled (ND) and disabled (N) workers
Table 8 Definition of variables
Table 9 Mean values and standard deviation (between parentheses) of explanatory variables used in Table 2 by disability status and gender

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pagan, R., Malo, M.Á. Performance Appraisal and Job Satisfaction for Workers Without and With Disabilities by Gender. Soc Indic Res 153, 1011–1039 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02524-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Performance appraisal
  • Disability
  • Job satisfaction
  • POLS
  • SOEP
  • Germany