2006
DOI: 10.1348/000712605x80146
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding the motivational effects of procedural and informational justice in feedback processes

Abstract: Building upon traditional feedback models, this study examined the role of fair treatment in feedback contexts. Structural equation modelling using data from 236 undergraduate students highlighted perceived accuracy as a mediator in the credibility-motivation relationship as well as a relationship between accuracy and perceptions of procedural and informational justice. In addition, the results showed that the motivating effects of feedback accuracy partially occurred through procedural justice perceptions. Te… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
77
0
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
3
77
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results may also be a basis for refining current theoretical models. In the models of Elicker et al (2006) and Roberson and Stewart (2006), for example, justice is depicted as a mediator of the relationship between relationship quality and feedback reactions, as well as of the relationship between feedback accuracy and motivation to improve performance. Based on our findings, it seems possible to refine the model of Elicker et al (2006) by also considering relationship quality as a moderator that alters the relationship between justice and feedback reactions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our results may also be a basis for refining current theoretical models. In the models of Elicker et al (2006) and Roberson and Stewart (2006), for example, justice is depicted as a mediator of the relationship between relationship quality and feedback reactions, as well as of the relationship between feedback accuracy and motivation to improve performance. Based on our findings, it seems possible to refine the model of Elicker et al (2006) by also considering relationship quality as a moderator that alters the relationship between justice and feedback reactions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, employees perceived the appraisal system to be fairer when they got the opportunity to express their feelings ('voice') (Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, 1978;Landy, Barnes-Farrell, & Cleveland, 1980). Recent studies (Jawahar, 2007;Kavanagh, Benson, & Brown, 2007;Roberson & Stewart, 2006) have provided further evidence that in a performance appraisal context there is a positive relationship between procedural justice and the motivation to improve performance following performance appraisal. From a practical perspective, we expect procedural justice to be the type of justice that is most controllable by the organisation.…”
Section: Procedural Justice Perceptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It creates performance feedback system between supervisor and employees (Mount, 1984). The primary goal of performance appraisal is to encourage employees' to change their behavior for performance improvement (Roberson & Stewart, 2006). This happens when supervisor coaches/counsels employees, communicates performance expectations and motivates subordinates to perform optimally (Ahmed, 1999;Thomas & Brentz, 1994).…”
Section: Performance Appraisal Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, informational justice also includes the reliability and reasonability that measure the quality of information in interactions. These findings support Ellis, Reus, and Lamont (2009) and Roberson and Stewart (2006) on distinguishing between informational justice and procedural justice. Furthermore, they extend these researches by illustrating the overlaps and differences between informational justice and correctability of procedural justice in land acquisition, which is also not evident in literature.…”
Section: Informational Justicesupporting
confidence: 69%