The impact of 360 feedback appraisal system on organizational justice and sustainability

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to extend previous results demonstrating a statistically significant causal relationship between the implementation of 360-degree feedback in an organization and employees’ perceptions of organizational justice. It explores the sustainability of this justice, ultimately making it an integral part of the organizational culture. The paper examines whether the previous model (based on relationships among 360-degree feedback, organizational justice and sustainability of organizational justice) is invariant across different levels of management (i.e. operational and top/middle managers) and across a group of female versus male employees. Design/methodology/approach Structural equation modeling multigroup analysis and invariance tests were conducted with a cross-sectional sample of 400 employees in various positions in home appliances and electronics organizations. Findings The results further sustain/contest previous findings on the relationships among appraisal, organizational justice and sustainability among respondents of different genders and at different managerial levels. The results also provide significant practical implications. Top managers and supervisors can incorporate gender and managerial level differences identified in this study to modify their management styles and appraisal techniques to install high levels of organizational justice and achieve a competitive edge through the sustained levels of this organizational justice. Originality/value This study is the first to explore the impact of implementing a 360-degree appraisal system on employees’ perceptions of justice, while taking into consideration gender differences, i.e. whether males or females tend to perceive different types of justice within the organization and whether they differ in the way that they react to the appraisal system being implemented within the workplace. Given all the positive traits associated with a 360-feedback appraisal system, the way that this feedback is viewed and interpreted by employees can differ according to the employee’s rank within the organization, i.e. whether he/she belongs to top/middle management team or the operational/front-line management team.

The moderating role of 360-degree appraisal between engagement and innovative behaviors

“…Respondents rated these eight statements on a seven-point Likert scale (1=very strongly disagree; 7=very strongly agree). Karkoulian et al (2016) and El Haddad et al (2018) found this scale valid and reliable within Lebanon. Despite inclusion in the survey, the present study did not use the results obtained via this scale, as the present study is focused on the relationship between employee engagement and innovation in the presence or absence of 360-degree evaluation and not the perceptions of the respondent relative to 360-evaluation.…”

Resource and Information Access for SME Sustainability in the Era of IR 4.0: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Innovation Capability and Management Commitment

“…Sustainability: this study uses a five-item scale (Q29-Q33) from the Sustainability Practices Indicator to measure sustainability [143]. This was validated by Karkoulian et al [144] and El Haddad et al [145], and reported to have good psychometric properties. The five items measure the overall focus of the organization on sustainability practices and principles.…”

The Domestic Tethering of Lebanese and Arab Women Journalists and News Managers

“…The media frenzy surrounding the landmark 1991 Hill-Thomas sexual harassment controversy in the U.S. (McAdams and Beasley 1994) sparked a flurry of research on gendered practices in the workplace (Fitzgerald and Shulman 1993;Harned et al 2002). Since then, scholars delved deeper into gendered workplace substructures and practices in news organizations around the world, both through country-specific investigations and cross-cultural comparisons (Arayssi, Dah, and Jizi 2016;Byerly 2011;Byerly and Ross 2006;Carter 1998;Djerf-Pierre 2005;El Haddad, Karkoulian, and Nehme 2018;Hanitzsch and Hanusch 2012;Jizi and Nehme 2017;Maamari and Saheb 2018;Maamari and Shouweiry 2016;Melin-Higgins 2004;Ross 2014;Steiner 1998;Van Zoonen 1998).…”