Unionised employee's reactions to the introduction of a goal‐based performance appraisal system¹

Abstract

While performance appraisal research has a rich history, we sought to address a long‐noted void in the human resource management (HRM) literature, namely an investigation of employees' reactions to a newly introduced performance appraisal. Specifically, we examined the reaction of 408 unionised employees to a newly introduced performance appraisal system. Reactions examined included appraisal satisfaction, job satisfaction, appraisal fairness, goal setting and the perceived purpose of the system. Satisfaction with the appraisal system was higher when (a) employees perceived it as being fair, (b) it was used primarily for developmental purposes and (c) it allowed them to participate in goal setting. Of additional importance, perception of a developmental focus in the appraisal partially mediated the relationship between appraisal satisfaction, and each of job satisfaction, appraisal fairness and goal setting.

Performance Management: A Scoping Review of the Literature and an Agenda for Future Research

“…In our review, topics in this theme included the use of formal feedback for employee development and training, identifying employee strengths and weaknesses, and coaching employees to improve performance—both at the individual and organizational level (Akuratiyagamage, 2005; Peretz & Fried, 2012). Particularly prevalent were papers examining employee reaction toward developmental aspects of PM using quantitative survey data (Krats & Brown, 2013; Selvarajan & Cloninger, 2012). Given that the raison d’être of HRD is the development of the human resources in the organization, it is reassuring to see the depth of coverage on this topic in our review but, as discussed later in this article, we see the need for HRD scholars to become much more active in exploring developmental potential within newer work environments.…”

“…Employee reaction. While the literature has historically been criticized for failing to examine user reactions to PM (see review in Krats & Brown, 2013), there were 102 (44.35%) studies in our search that concentrated on this theme, while job attitude terms such as satisfaction and commitment appeared 53 and 46 times, respectively, in the word frequency search (Farndale, Hope-Hailey, & Kelliher, 2011;Krats & Brown, 2013;Selvarajan & Cloninger, 2012). In contrast, job-related behaviors such as OCB, turnover, and counterproductive work behavior were less commonly researched in relation to PM; each was coded five or fewer times in our analysis (Fisk, 2010;Juhdi, Pa'Wan, & Hansaram, 2013;Podsakoff, Whiting, Welsh, & Mai, 2013;W.…”

Partnership, collaboration and mutual gains: evaluating context, interests and legitimacy

“…Research from North America has typically been at the forefront of claims that link innovative employee and union involvement practices to economic and productivity benefits (Freeman and Medoff 1984;Hirsch 2004;Krats and Brown 2012). In industries experiencing significant competitive pressures, more positive outcomes for employees are linked to a strong union able to negotiate job security, obtain strategic positions as pension trustees and disperse profits from increased productivity to wages from the start (Greenwald 2004;Sayce, Weststar and Verma 2012).…”

Putting the System Into Performance Management Systems: A Review and Agenda for Performance Management Research

“…Thus, it appears that the empirical evidence for the importance of organizational strategy in PM is actually quite thin. PM strategy (including the purpose of PM), on the other hand, appears unequivocally important, both theoretically and empirically (e.g., Ayers, 2013), and recent research has identified a critical distinction between intended (from the perspective of management or the organization) and perceived and experienced (from the perspective of employees) purposes of PM (e.g., Krats & Brown, 2013; Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). We have more to say about the role of PM purpose when we discuss systems principles in the final section below.…”