Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Performance Rating, Leader–Member Exchange, Perceived Utility, and Organizational Justice on Performance Appraisal Satisfaction: Applying a Moral Judgment Perspective

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The performance appraisal process is increasingly seen as a key link between employee behaviour and an organization’s strategic objectives. Unfortunately, performance reviews often fail to change how people work, and dissatisfaction with the appraisal process has been associated with general job dissatisfaction, lower organizational commitment, and increased intentions to quit. Recent research has identified a number of factors related to reactions to performance appraisals in general and appraisal satisfaction in particular. Beyond the appraisal outcome itself, researchers have found that appraisal reactions are affected by perceptions of fairness and the relationship between the supervisor and the employee. To explain the relationships among these factors, the present article proposes a moral cognition perspective. We suggest that employees judge a performance appraisal from the perspective of its moral justifiability, and that appraisal reactions will be determined, at least in part, by the perceived moral justifiability of the process. The proposal was supported by results from a survey of government employees using measures of performance ratings, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacal, R. (2004). Manager’s guide to performance reviews (p. 21). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakely, G. L. (1993). The effects of performance rating discrepancies on supervisors and subordinates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 57–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., Hyatt, D., & Bension, J. (2010). Consequences of the performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review, 39, 375–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. J., Weitzel, & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31, 903–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 616–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119–151). Lexington, MA: New Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader–member exchange in the performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32, 531–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader–member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational categories of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greller, M. M. (1978). The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 646–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of a theory. Theory into Practice, 16, 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: A critical evaluation of Kohlbergls model. Psychological Review, 112, 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 504–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. E, I. I. I. (1994). Performance management: The next generation. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26, 16–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Yuthas, K. (1997). Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and organizational moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1213–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, N. R. F. (1976). The appraisal interview: Three basic approaches. [Originally published as: Maier, N. R. F. (1958) (Ed.). The appraisal interview: Three basic approaches. La Jolla, CA: University Associates.]. New York: Wiley.

  • Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monga, M. (2007). Managers’ moral reasoning: evidence from large Indian manufacturing organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003). Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations, 56, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myyry, L., Siponen, M., Pahnila, S., Vartiainen, T., & Vance, A. (2009). What levels of moral reasoning and values explain adherence to information security rules? An empirical study. European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccolo, R. F., Bardes, M., Mayer, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Does high quality leader–member exchange accentuate the effects of organizational justice? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 273–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2008). Twenty best practices for job employee performance reviews. Compensation and Benefits Review, 40(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R. E., & Pobin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of corporate moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, M. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32, 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachdeva, S., Singh, P., & Medin, D. (2011). Culture and the quest for universal principles in moral reasoning. International Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinkling leader–member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snarey, J. (1985). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 202–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions of supervisor feedback, LMX, and employee well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 198–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sridha, B. S., & Camburn, A. (1993). Stages of moral development of corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 727–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, Victoria, V8P5E7, British Columbia

    Carrie Dusterhoff, J. Barton Cunningham & James N. MacGregor

Authors
  1. Carrie Dusterhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Barton Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James N. MacGregor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Barton Cunningham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J.B. & MacGregor, J.N. The Effects of Performance Rating, Leader–Member Exchange, Perceived Utility, and Organizational Justice on Performance Appraisal Satisfaction: Applying a Moral Judgment Perspective. J Bus Ethics 119, 265–273 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1634-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1634-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation