Employee fairness perceptions of performance appraisal: a Saint Lucian case study

被引:33
作者
Narcisse, Sharon [3 ]
Harcourt, Mark [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Waikato, Dept Strategy, Hamilton, New Zealand
[2] Univ Waikato, HRM, Hamilton, New Zealand
[3] Customs & Excise Dept, Castries, St Lucia, Trinidad Tobago
关键词
fairness; justice; performance appraisal;
D O I
10.1080/09585190802051451
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
This research identifies the essential factors which influence employees' fairness perceptions of their performance appraisals, and determines the applicability of these factors to the experiences of employees in a Saint Lucian public service organization. Fairness perceptions are of three main types. First, distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of an actual appraisal rating. Second, procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of procedures used to determine the appraisal rating. Third, interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness of the rater's interpersonal treatment of the ratee during the appraisal process. A qualitative case study method was used to gain a rich understanding of employee perceptions of the fairness of their performance appraisals. Data were obtained from both completed appraisal forms and interviews with 20 knowledgeable employees. All interviews were transcribed and assessed using a thematic analysis. Overall, results show that distributive, procedural, and interactional justice factors identified in the existing literature influence employee perceptions of fairness in their appraisals. Results suggest that employees also consider four additional justice factors, as yet not formally recognized in the justice literature, one distributive - the consistency in reward distribution - and three procedural - appraisal frequency, job relevant criteria, and rater and ratee training.
引用
收藏
页码:1152 / 1169
页数:18
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
ADAMS JS, 1965, ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL, V2, P267
[2]   PEER PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS - THE IMPACT OF RATER COMPETENCE, RATER LOCATION, AND RATING CORRECTABILITY ON FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS [J].
BARCLAY, JH ;
HARLAND, LK .
GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT, 1995, 20 (01) :39-60
[3]  
Bies R. J., 2001, Advances in organizationaljustice, P89
[4]  
Collis J.Hussey., 2003, BUSINESS RES PRACTIC
[5]   Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research [J].
Colquitt, JA ;
Conlon, DE ;
Wesson, MJ ;
Porter, COLH ;
Ng, KY .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 86 (03) :425-445
[6]  
Cook J., 2004, J MANAGE PSYCHOL, V19, P526, DOI [https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410543605, DOI 10.1108/02683940410543605]
[7]   Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice [J].
Cropanzano, R ;
Prehar, CA ;
Chen, PY .
GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT, 2002, 27 (03) :324-351
[8]  
Cropanzano R., 2001, ADV ORG JUSTICE, P119
[9]   DISTRIBUTIVE AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AS ANTECEDENTS OF JOB DISSATISFACTION AND INTENT TO TURNOVER [J].
DAILEY, RC ;
KIRK, DJ .
HUMAN RELATIONS, 1992, 45 (03) :305-317
[10]   EQUITY, EQUALITY, AND NEED - WHAT DETERMINES WHICH VALUE WILL BE USED AS BASIS OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE [J].
DEUTSCH, M .
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES, 1975, 31 (03) :137-149