|
Article Excerpt
Because performance feedback is a well-established component of employee development (Arvey & Murphy, 1998; London, 1997, 2003), a large body of research has focused on understanding how its implementation encourages individuals to change their behaviour and improve on past performance (for a review, see Alvero, Bucklin, & Austin, 2001; Fedor, 1991; Hgen & Davis, 2000; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Accordingly, extensive research has examined elements of appraisal effectiveness to better understand individual responses to performance feedback. Although research has historically examined the effects of rating and appraisal characteristics, recent research has highlighted recipients' perceptions as a key criterion for determining the success of appraisal systems (Keeping & Levy, 2000; Levy & Williams, 2004). For example, several studies have shown perceived source credibility and feedback accuracy to exert significant influence on recipients' motivation to use appraisal feedback and increase their effort towards improving performance (Fedor, Eder, & Buckley, 1989; Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995).
Given a variety of measurement errors and psychometric issues that limit the effectiveness of performance appraisals (for a review, see Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, and McKellin (1993)), research has increasingly focused on fair treatment in the appraisal process as a criterion for determining the success of appraisal systems (Keeping & Levy, 2000; Levy & Williams, 2004). Folger, Konovsky, and Cropanzano (1992) propose that a due process metaphor may be used in performance management situations to ensure fair treatment in the appraisal process. Following this metaphor, a due process system may be characterized by three essential features: (1) adequate notice--that managers distribute and explain performance standards as well as provide regular and timely feedback on performance, (2) fair hearing--that an employee is provided with an assessment of his/her performance and an explanation of how the assessment was derived, as well as an opportunity to provide commentary, and (3) judgment based on evidence--that managers consistently and without bias apply performance standards to all employees (Folger et al., 1992).
Appraisal research has supported the positive effects of due process on recipients' perceptions of rating accuracy and fairness (Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001; Taylor et al., 1995). However, because most research has confounded these two constructs (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998), we have little understanding of the unique role that fairness plays in appraisal processes. Although there are a few notable exceptions that examine fairness as a separate construct from feedback accuracy (see Erdogan et al., 2001; Folger et al., 1992; Taylor et al., 1995), fairness in performance appraisal has been primarily conceptualized in terms of due process and, thus, these studies have focused on appraisal facets as determinants of justice perceptions. Consequently, we have little knowledge of whether perceived fairness in appraisal processes is useful in motivating higher levels of performance. Given that perceptions of fairness are critical to the success of appraisal systems (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994), research is needed to investigate the motivating effects of fairness in appraisal processes.
Given the suggested importance of perceived source credibility and feedback accuracy to recipients' behavioural responses to feedback, we examined the unique effects of these constructs, as well as the relationships between them. Building upon these findings, we also explored the motivating effects of fairness in feedback contexts. Specifically, we proposed a relationship between the perceived fairness of appraisal processes--in particular, perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice--and motivation to improve performance. Overall, we extended traditional feedback models to gain a better understanding of the role of fairness in appraisal processes, as well as how fairness might enhance recipients' reactions to appraisal and, subsequently, the effectiveness or success of appraisal systems.
Theoretical background
The motivational effects of source credibility and feedback accuracy
Motivational theories, such as control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981) and goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990), emphasize the importance of feedback to individual performance. As a message that communicates an individual's progress towards a certain performance level or describes the occurrence of specific behaviours or actions (Herold & Greller, 1977), feedback helps individuals to determine the appropriate allocation of task-related resources (e.g. effort, time, etc.) or choice of performance strategy (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Subsequently, feedback motivates behaviour (London, 2003). Given that individual performance is considered a joint function of ability and motivation (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999), providing motivation to improve performance or encouraging individuals to change behaviour for performance improvement is a primary goal of performance appraisal. Several studies have examined recipients' motivation to use performance feedback as a reaction to performance appraisals (Levy & Williams, 2004). However, little empirical research has explored appraisal effectiveness in terms of recipients' motivation to improve performance. In this study, we investigate the effects of perceived feedback system characteristics on recipient motivation to improve.
Research highlights perceived accuracy as vital to the acceptance and use of appraisal feedback (e.g. Cardy & Dobbins, 1994; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). More specifically, to initiate the process of functional performance behaviour change, research suggests that feedback must be perceived and accepted as accurate (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). Accepting feedback as accurate facilitates recipient attention and focus on how to use the feedback to improve performance, whereas feedback perceived as inaccurate can distract the recipient from determining the real intentions of the feedback source or his/her actual level of performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Leung, Su, & Morris, 2001). Empirical research provides evidence that attention given to the content of feedback and its subsequent acceptance influences the extent to which feedback brings about corrective changes in performance behaviour (see Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). For example, Taylor et al. (1995) reported a significant relationship between perceived feedback accuracy and motivation to improve, indicating that the motivational properties of feedback may be dependent upon the perceived correctness of the feedback itself. Similarly, the findings of Brett and Atwater (2001) showed that people who perceived performance feedback as less accurate were likely to view the feedback as less useful for future development and exhibited less motivation to change behaviour and improve performance. Overall, this research suggests that the motivating properties of feedback may be dependent upon the perceived correctness of the feedback itself.
Perceived source credibility, or having expertise relevant to the type of performance being evaluated (Albright & Levy, 1995), has also emerged in performance evaluation research as a primary influence on individuals' reactions to appraisal. More specifically, research demonstrates that recipients' perceptions of supervisors' knowledge and competence directly influence perceptions of appraisal accuracy (Bannister, 1986; Taylor et al., 1995). In addition, research suggests that recipients tend to express greater intention to use feedback from highly credible sources than from sources low in credibility and tend to be more motivated to improve performance when feedback comes from credible sources. For example, Bannister's (1986) study of responses to performance outcome feedback demonstrated that when participants perceived the source as credible, they attributed greater accuracy to the feedback and indicated greater intention to implement the suggestions provided in the feedback. Similarly, Fedor et al. (1989) reported a significant relationship between recipients' evaluations of the supervisor (i.e. perceived credibility) and motivation to improve performance.
The findings of studies that have distinguished between recipients' perceptions of the feedback source and the feedback message highlight a relationship between source credibility and feedback accuracy and their subsequent effects on recipient motivation (Bannister, 1986; Taylor et al., 1995). Further, some researchers have suggested that the effects of supervisor credibility on employees' willingness to use feedback occur through recipients' perceptions of the...
|
