DA1 - Satisfaction with performance appraisal systems A...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Satisfaction with performance appraisal systems A study of role perceptions Jill Cook Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Salisbury, UK, and Alf Crossman School of Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK Keywords Performance appraisal, Public sector organizations, Perception Abstract This study examines the inter-relationship between a person’s role as appraisee and/or appraiser in a performance appraisal system (PAS) and level of satisfaction expressed with the system. It builds on earlier US studies which found that being an appraiser and, therefore, also an appraisee increased a person’s satisfaction level compared with those who were appraisees only. Data were gathered from 382 respondents to examine three aspects of organisational justice which are known to influence satisfaction with PASs. The results indicate no intrinsic difference in satisfaction level linked to role in administering a PAS and that the source of satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction with the PAS was not equally attributable to all aspects of organisational justice. Introduction The importance of people to organisational performance has long been recognised (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990), yet according to Fletcher (1993) more than 80 per cent of UK organisations surveyed in the UK express some dissatisfaction with their performance appraisal system (PAS), perceiving that they fail as a mechanism to develop and motivate people. Bowles and Coates (1993) report a figure of 68 per cent dissatisfaction with the process in a sample of 48 UK organisations and that this is a result of the many conflicting requirements that most organisations have of their PAS. The Achilles’ heel of the entire process, according to Kikoski (1999), is the annual performance review interview; line managers are under-prepared to handle the interview and reluctant to give negative feedback, leading to a situation where the people being appraised receive incomplete and inaccurate messages about their performance. The literature suggests that people will only be satisfied with a performance appraisal (PA) process if it fulfils the criteria of “fairness”, expressed by many researchers in terms of organisational justice (OJ) (Greenberg, 1986a, b, c; Greenberg and Folger, 1983; Landy et al. , 1978; Lind and Tyler, 1988). The work of Mount (1983, 1984), and Pooyan and Eberhardt (1989) suggests there may be an intrinsic difference in the level of satisfaction with a PAS that is linked to a person’s role within the system. It has also been suggested that a lack of appraisee training in the PA process may cause discrepancies between expected and actual performance assessments which will contribute to dissatisfaction with the system (Bretz et al. , 1992)....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/16/2011 for the course ECON 101 taught by Professor Dunst during the Spring '08 term at Alabama.

Page1 / 16

DA1 - Satisfaction with performance appraisal systems A...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online