Efektif Commitent With Pa

8/8/2019 Efektif Commitent With Pa

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/efektif-commitent-with-pa 1/23

THE PSYCHOLOGIST-MANAGER JOURNAL, 2007, 10(2), 127–148

Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Psychologists in Management

Testing a Model of PerformanceAppraisal Fit on Attitudinal Outcomes

Hal J. Whiting Bigby, Havis & Associates

Theresa J. B. KlineUniversity of Calgary

The purpose of this study was to test the effects of the congruence of employees’

current versus ideal performance appraisal system on performance appraisal

attitudes. This in turn was assessed as to its predictive relationships with affective

organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Continuance organizational

commitment and job performance were also assessed in the model. A total of 149 surveys were completed by employees of post-secondary institutions and were

employed in academic, clerical, professional, and managerial positions. Perfor-

mance appraisal congruence positively predicted performance appraisal attitude,

which then predicted affective organizational commitment and turnover intentions,

supporting the importance of person-performance appraisal fit in the organizational

behavior literature. The results are discussed in terms of the relevance of these

findings in theory, research, and practice.

Performance appraisal research has been a major focus of industrial-

organizational psychology and management scholars for decades with rater

accuracy being the major focus (Balzer & Sulsky, 1990; Fletcher, 2001).

Although some of the emphasis on the accuracy of performance appraisal systems

has tapered off, a review of the literature from the past 5 years yielded a

significant number of articles that still deal with this issue (e.g., Chirico et al.,

2004; Curtis, Harvey, & Ravden, 2005; Findley, Giles, & Mossholder, 2000;

Fox, Bizman, & Garti, 2005; Jelley & Goffin, 2001; Lam & Schaubroeck,

Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Theresa J. B. Kline, Department of Psychology,



128 WHITING AND KLINE

1999; Lefkowitz, 2000; Lievens, 2001; Mero, Motowidlo, & Anna, 2003;

Noonan & Sulsky, 2001; Schleicher & Day, 1998; Srull & Wyer, 1989; Tizner,

Murphy, & Cleveland 2001).Fletcher (2001), in his review article on the extant performance appraisalresearch and where it is headed, stated that the research was beginning to shift

from a focus on rating accuracy to social and motivational concerns. For example,Cawley, Keeping, and Levy (1998) meta-analyzed the effects of the employee

attitudes of utility, satisfaction, and fairness of performance appraisal systems.Dipboye and de Pontbriand (1981) found that employees’ attitudes toward their

appraisal systems were more positive if (a) the ratings used were relevant to their job, (b) goal setting was discussed, and (c) the appraisal process allowed them to

voice their own opinions. Dobbins, Cardy, and Platz-Vieno (1990) found that asthe number of subordinates a supervisor was responsible for increased, so too did

the importance employees placed on the frequency of the rating process. Despitethe fact that such studies exist, attitudinal research in the performance appraisal

domain has been sporadic and sparse compared to that addressing psychometricand methodological issues (Sulsky & Keown, 1998), and thus attitude has even

been referred to as the “neglected criterion” (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).A fruitful way to examine the importance of attitudes toward the performance

appraisal system is to determine if the congruence between the system and

employee expectations has an impact on relevant outcomes. A useful framework for undertaking this endeavor is the Person-Environment (P-E) Fit model.

Person-Environment (P-E) Fit

P-E fit is a model that has received much attention in literature over the past20 years (e.g., Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) and

has been defined as the congruence between the values, goals and expectations of employees and those of the organization (Boxx, Odom, & Dunn, 1991; Schneider,

1987). Kristof (1996) provided a concise definition of person-organization fitas “the compatibility of people and organizations that occurs when (a) at least

one entity provides what the other needs, or (b) both share similar fundamentalcharacteristics, or (c) both” (p. 271). This was refined later to encompass the

broader umbrella term of P-E fit as “the compatibility between an individual anda work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched”

(Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 281).P-E fit has been defined as both complementary (adding something unique

to the existing climate and culture) and supplementary (fitting with the existing

climate and culture) (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Other conceptualizations of fit compare the congruence between demands-abilities, needs-supplies, or person-

i ti N d li fit h i di id l i d f



PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONGRUENCE 129

goals of the organization. Demands-abilities fit is a measure of congruence that

is characterized by how well a person fits a job. The better the fit between what

a job demands and what abilities the employee brings to the job, the better the fit(Cable & De Rue, 2002; Cable & Judge, 1996; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001).

Regardless of the conceptualization, degree of fit is most often assessed between

an aspect of the employee (e.g., personality, goals, needs, skills, and abilities)

and an aspect of the employing organization (e.g., climate and culture). Recent

meta-analyses of the outcomes of P-E fit support its use in the context of the

present study in that there was a positive relationship between fit and affective

commitment to the organization and a negative relationship between fit and intent

to turnover (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).

The primary variable of interest in this study was person-performance appraisalcongruency and its utility in predicting performance appraisal attitudes. The degree

to which performance appraisal attitudes, in turn, predicted turnover intentions and

affective commitment was a second focus of the study. The model that guided this

research is noted in Figure 1. In the following sections, each variable in the modelis discussed and the relationships between the variables described.

Person-Environment Fit and Performance Appraisal

CongruenceThough P-E fit (or congruency) has been linked to important outcomes such

as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and actual

PA Congruence PA Attitudes

Affective

Commitment

Turnover

Intentions

Continuance

Commitment

Job Performance

H1

H3

H2

H4

H5H6




turnover (Boxx et al., 1991; Cable & Judge, 1996; Da Silva, Thomas, Mayoral,

Yoshihara, & Hutcheson, 2002; Lovelace & Rosen, 1996; O’Reilly, Chatman, &

Caldwell, 1991), P-E fit and its outcomes have not been evaluated withina performance appraisal framework. Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition framework provides insight into why fit is important for this particular

study in that it describes a person’s compatibility with an organization. Specif-

ically, individuals who are attracted to organizations that seem to best fit theirneeds will later assess the degree to which these needs are met. Many facets of a

job such as person-vocation, person-group, and leader-member fit contribute tomeeting those needs (Edwards, 1994; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In the current

study it is argued that the needs of employees and the benefits supplied by

the organization via its performance appraisal system affect employee attitudes.In short, person-performance appraisal congruency was hypothesized to affect

employees much in the same way that other forms of fit affect similar outcomes.For the current study, the measure of P-E fit within the context of the

organization’s performance appraisal system assessed the congruence betweenemployees’ “ideal” performance appraisal systems and their employing organi-

zation’s “current” performance appraisal systems. There has been some contro-versy around using such measures to the extent that some argue that they should

not be used at all (e.g., Edwards, 1993, 1994; Edwards & Cooper, 1990). They

argue that congruency measures are inherently unreliable and do not carry uniqueinformation above the main effect measures (e.g., ideal and current performance

appraisal system ratings in this study for example). We regard these admonitionsas somewhat draconian insofar as they do not allow for the use of an intuitively

reasonable measure—that of a psychological comparison of what one has and

what one wants.

Performance Appraisal Attitude

Performance appraisal attitudes (PA Attitudes) plays a central role in the model. Itwas expected to predict affective commitment and turnover intentions. This study

used a measure of performance appraisal satisfaction termed “PA Attitudes”that included three dimensions: satisfaction, utility, and fairness. Each of these

aspects is important in contributing to an overall sense of approval of or attitudestowards the performance appraisal system and will be discussed in turn.

Satisfaction

Employees are more likely to be satisfied with their performance appraisalsystems when they understand the components and uses of their system (Levy &Willi 1998) Fi di l t th t ti f ti ith th i l




1970; Burke & Wilcox, 1969; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995; Mani, 2002); (b)

feedback, particularly in the areas of skill development, pay for performance, and

career advancement occurs during the appraisal session (Burke & Wilcox, 1969;Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland, 1986; Giles & Mossholder, 1990; Inderieden,

Keaveny & Allen, 1988; Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, 1978; Mount, 1983; Nathan,

Mohrman & Milliman, 1991; Prince & Lawler, 1986); and (c) subordinates

feel that they are given enough time to express their perspectives, have the

opportunity to influence the outcome, and are given a sufficient explanation

of their ratings (Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Nemeroff & Wexley, 1979;

Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995).

Utility

Positive employee perceptions of the utility of performance appraisal systems

have been shown to be affected by: (a) manager training on the appraisal system

and the appraisal system’s purposes (Dobbins et al., 1990); (b) goal-setting and

manager assistance in planning subordinate development (Burke, Weitzel, &

Weir, 1978; Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Greller, 1975, 1978); (c) the

relevance of the components of the performance appraisal to the employees’

current role in the organization (Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981); (d) the inclusion

of discussions of pay for performance (Nathan et al., 1991; Prince & Lawler,1986); (e) feedback and voice in the process (Burke et al., 1978; Dipboye & de

Pontbriand,1981; Greller, 1975, 1978);and (f)a positive relationshipwith thesuper-

visor (Russell & Goode, 1988). Conversely, performance appraisal systems are not

viewed positively by managers or employees when the stated purpose is different

from the perceived results, as is the case in a merit pay system that does not overtly

reward positive appraisal outcomes (Gabris & Ihrke, 2001).

Fairness

Interestingly, if employees have a chance to change outcomes (i.e., are given a

way to dispute negative outcomes) (Gabris & Ihrke, 2001; Taylor et al., 1995) or

were simply listened to without affecting the outcome of the interview assessment

(Burke et al., 1978; Cawley et al., 1998; Evans & McShane, 1988; Gabris &

Ihrke, 2001; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995; Taylor et al., 1995), they perceived

the performance appraisal system as fair. Employees also indicated that the

appraisal is more fair when the content on which they are evaluated is perceived

as valid (Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2004). Employees expect to be rewarded

and appraised fairly and for the process to be carried out with no hidden agendas(Cawley et al., 1998; Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Harris, 2001). Perceived

f i l i d h i d t k th b di t ’




Inderieden et al., 1988; Landy et al., 1978) and when the frequency of theevaluations increased (Landy et al., 1978), especially when managers had larger

spans of control (Dobbins et al., 1990).

Job Performance

Another variable in the model that will help ensure its correct specificationis that of job performance. Specifically in this case, it was expected thatemployee job performance would affect performance appraisal attitude. That is,those employees with better appraisal ratings, regardless of their perceptions of appraisal congruence, will tend to have more positive attitudes toward the system

(Bartol, Durham, & Poon, 2001; Pearce & Porter, 1986; Russell & Goode, 1988;Young & Kline, 1996).

Organizational Affective Commitment

Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian’s (1974) organizational commitmentconceptualization was the predominant approach used to study organiza-tional commitment until the early 1990s. At that time, Meyer and Allen(1991) developed a three-component model of organizational commitment that

included affective commitment (employees’ attitudes toward their organization),normative commitment (employees’ sense of obligation and personal loyaltytoward the organization), and continuance commitment (employees’ need to staywith a particular organization). Since that time many studies have supportedthis three-component model of organizational commitment, including a recent

meta-analysis that outlined many of the antecedents and outcomes of organiza-tional commitment (e.g., Meyer, Stanly, Herscovitch, & Topolynsky, 2002). Forexample, they found that job satisfaction was positively correlated with affectivecommitment, but turnover intentions and withdrawal cognitions were negatively

correlated with affective, normative, and continuance commitment.Affective commitment and overall job performance have also been found to be

positively correlated, although not as highly as with other measures of organiza-tional attitudes (Meyer et al., 2002). However, Wright and Bonett (2002) did notfind this relationship. Their meta-analysis found the relationship from affectivecommitment to job performance was moderated by tenure. Riketta’s (2002)meta-analysis also confirmed previous findings that the relationship between jobperformance and attitudinal types of commitment is positive but weak.

Organizational Continuance Commitment

B k (1960) i i ll i t d d th t f ti it t i




The path between performance appraisal attitudes and turnover intentions

plays a central role in the proposed model. Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia,

and Griffeth (1992) subjected four models of voluntary turnover to a meta-analytic review. These included models by Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth

(1978), Dalessio, Silverman, and Schuck (1986), Bannister and Griffeth (1986)

and Hom, Griffeth, and Sellaro (1984). All of them have several characteristics

in common—namely affective reactions to the organization, cognitions about

turning over and actually then leaving the organization.

Tett and Meyer (1993) used meta-analytic results and path analysis to test

different predictors of employee turnover. They found that the most parsimo-

nious one was that in which job satisfaction and organizational commitment

contributed equally to turnover intentions. This model, dubbed the “independenteffects model” accounted for over 50% of the variance in turnover intentions.

Other studies, including one by Quarles (1994), have replicated the finding that

organizational commitment and satisfaction together predict turnover intention.

Quarles also included antecedents of interest to the present study of satisfaction

with performance criteria and with promotional opportunities as predictors of

job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which in turn predicted turnover

intentions. Also consistent with the variables of interest in the current study,

Poon (2004) found that employees who perceived that their supervisor was

manipulating performance appraisal ratings for political reasons had decreased job satisfaction as well as increased turnover intentions.

Specific Model Hypotheses

Based on the literature the following hypotheses and research question are offered.

Hypothesis 1: Performance Appraisal Congruence will predict Performance

Appraisal Attitudes. Specifically, those with the highest fit will have the most

positive attitudes toward the performance appraisal system.

Hypothesis 2: Job Performance ratings will positively predict Performance

Appraisal Attitude.

Hypothesis 3: Performance Appraisal Attitude will positively predict Affective

Commitment to the Organization.

Hypothesis 4: Performance Appraisal Attitude will negatively predict Turnover

Intentions.

Hypothesis 5: Affective Commitment to the organization will negatively predict

Turnover Intentions.

H h i 6 C i C i (Hi h S ifi ) ill i l di




METHOD

Participant RecruitmentAdministrative, academic, and support staff from six western Canadian univer-

sities and colleges made up the sample for this study. This population was

targeted because they represent a diverse group of individuals occupying

professional, managerial, and staff positions. In addition, individuals in such

institutions are evaluated on an annual basis and thus were expected to have

had enough experience with their performance appraisal systems to be able to

complete the questionnaires appropriately.

The procedure for obtaining consent to solicit participation of employees

in the various institutions included several steps, including modification andcustomization of the ethics protocol and procedure for contacting employees.

Such modifications included changes in the title of “supervisor” to something

more appropriate such as “rater” or “person conducting my performance

appraisal.” An approval letter by the human resources manager (three insti-

tutions) or an internal research “champion” sponsor (one institution) was

sometimes required. At four sites the researchers went through the Vice-President

(Academic) to gain access to the institution’s employees. In one instance the

research proposal was submitted to an executive committee at one of their

meetings. In other cases meetings with union leaders and ethics review committeemembers were needed to secure access to employees.

Survey administration was carried out in different ways depending on the

site. Information about the survey was sent out to employees in newsletters,

emailed out to faculty and staff by administrative staff, or emailed directly by the

researchers to each potential participant. Employees then completed the survey

on the Internet. It was not possible to calculate a response rate because in most

cases the survey administration was not left up to the researcher and thus it is

not known how many actually received the survey. However, in instances where

this was known, the response rate was quite low (less than 1%).

Employee Participant Characteristics

A total of 149 usable surveys was completed by the employees. The participants’

ages ranged from 23–65 with a mean of 44. 87. The sample was comprised of

45% men (n =67) and 54% women (n = 80); two participants did not report their

sex. There were many position types represented in the sample. Specifically, 47

(32%) were academic staff (i.e., professor, instructor), 52 (35%) were supportstaff (e.g., service, clerical, computer system), and 48 (32%) held professional

i l k ( d ) T i di id l did




Their organizational tenure in their respective organizations ranged from 1 to

35 years ( M =9.06) and their position tenure varied from less than 1 year to 29

years ( M =5.31). The average time that had passed since the employees’ mostrecent performance appraisal was 5.32 months with a range of 0 to more than

10 months. The average number of times the participants were appraised using

their current appraisal system was 4.44 with a range of 1 to 7.

Measures

Performance Appraisal Congruence

To assess person-performance appraisal fit in this study, participants werefirst asked if each of 16 performance appraisal system characteristics were

part of their current system. They responded with “true” (coded 1), “false”

(coded −1), or “don’t know” (coded 0). Participants were then asked to rate

the same items again, however this time they were asked whether or not the

characteristic should be part of an ideal performance appraisal system. For these

items, the alternatives were: -1 = “important that this feature is not part of my ideal

system”; 0 = “doesn’t matter whether this feature is or is not a part of my ideal

system”; or 1 = “important that this is a feature of my ideal system.” Examples

of items included: “The appraisal system is used for recognition purposes”and “All employees have their performance evaluated regardless of rank or

tenure.”

Cross-products were generated for each of the 16 items by multiplying each

of the 16 current system responses by each of the 16 ideal system responses. The

mean of these 16 cross-products was called Performance Appraisal Congruence.

Negative values on this measure indicate that there is lower congruence between

what the performance appraisal system provides and what the employee wants

in the system. Positive values on this measure indicate that there is higher

congruence between what the performance appraisal system provides and whatthe employee wants in the system. In a previous study (Whiting, Kline, & Sulsky,

2005) the internal consistency of the congruence measure was 0.86.

Performance appraisal attitudes

Whiting et al. (2005) also developed and used a three-item measure of perfor-

mance appraisal attitude. The response scale was a 7-point Likert-type scale

anchored with 1=“totally disagree” and 5=“totally agree.” Higher scores onthis measure indicate more positive attitudes toward the performance appraisal

t Th i t l i t f th l 0 87 i th Whiti t l




Job Performance

Employees were also asked to rate their own performance based on their most

recent performance appraisal rating. Specifically they were asked a single item:“What was your most recent overall appraisal rating?” and rated it on a 7-point

Likert-type scale anchored with 1 “poor” to 7 “excellent.”

Affective Commitment

Assessing affective commitment was done through participant self-report

using Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) 6-item revised affective commitment

scale. The items are responded to using a 7-point Likert-type response scale

anchored with 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree.” Higher scores onthis measure indicate higher levels of affective commitment. The median alpha

coefficient aggregating across studies is reported to be 0.85 (Meyer & Allen,

1997).

Continuance Commitment

High Sacrifice Continuance Commitment was assessed through Powell and

Meyer’s (2004) revised continuance commitment scale. This scale contains six

items and the response scale is a Likert-type anchored from 1 “strongly disagree”to 7 “strongly agree.” Higher scores on this measure indicate higher levels

of continuance commitment. The internal consistency reported by Powell andMeyer (2004) was 0.81 for this scale.

Turnover Intentions

O’Reilly et al.’s (1991) 4-item measure of turnover intention was used in

this study. O’Reilly’s scale was chosen partly because it was designed for use

in studies of congruence and partly because it contains the three components of turnover intentions that are important to the predictive validity of actual turnover,

which include thoughts of quitting, quit intentions, and job search intentions(Hom & Griffeth, 1994). Responses to these items are on a 7-point Likert-type

scale anchored from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree.” Higher scores

on this measure indicate greater intentions to turn over. Coefficient alpha was

reported to be 0.85 on these items (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001).

Procedure

P ti i t t il i iti th t ti i t i th t d Th




Hypothesis 5 was supported; confirming the results of many previous

studies that Affective Commitment negatively predicts Turnover Intentions

(=–0.53, t = –5.48, p< .01). Hypothesis 6 was supported, again confirmingthe results of previous investigations that Continuance Commitment (High

Sacrifice) is negatively related to Turnover Intentions ( =–0.34, t = –4.07,

p< .01).

The model with the estimated parameters is shown in Figure 2. The assessment

of the model as a whole is reflected in several fit indices. Specifically, the

minimum fit chi-square was not significant ( 2 = 12.47(9), p = 0.19), which

indicates a proper fit. This means that the LISREL program was able to reproduce

the correlation matrix using the information in the path estimates such that there

was a non-significant difference between the original correlation matrix and thereproduced correlation matrix. Other fit indices included: Goodness of Fit Index

(0.97), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (0.94), and Comparative Fit Index (0.98)

all of which were greater than the suggested .90. Finally, the Standardized Root

Mean Residual was 0.09 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation was

equal to 0.05, both of which are expected to be below .10. All these suggest a

good to excellent fitting model.

Notes: N = 149, * = p < .01

PA Congruence PA Attitudes

Affective

Commitment

Turnover

Intentions

Continuance

Commitment

Job Performance

.71*

.43*

.24*

–.20*

–.53*–.34*




DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to assess whether attitudes relevant to organizationsare predicted by the congruence of what employees hope for in a performance

appraisal system and what they are currently being appraised on. Several paths

within a structural equation model were used to achieve this purpose.

Hypothesis 1 that performance appraisal congruence would positively predict

performance appraisal attitude was supported. This is important insofar as

measures of congruence have been criticized as unimportant due to their unreli-

ability and non-informative value (e.g., Edwards, 1993, 1994).

Hypothesis 2 that job performance would predict performance appraisal

attitude was supported. It seems reasonable to conclude that when assessingemployee attitudes toward the performance appraisal system, it is important

also to obtain a measure of their perceptions of their most recent performance

appraisal in order to correctly specify a model.

Hypothesis 3 that performance appraisal attitude would predict affective

commitment to the organization was supported. Affective commitment has been

so consistent in predicting behavioral outcomes that it was rewarding to find that

performance appraisal attitude contributed to the respondents’ overall affective

commitment. The support of this path makes a strong argument for the future

role of performance appraisal attitudes in the organizational behavior literature.Hypothesis 4 that there would be a significant relationship between perfor-

mance appraisal attitude and an employee’s intent to leave the organization was

also supported suggesting that this has a direct effect on turnover intentions, not

just via other affective responses such as affective commitment.

Hypothesis 5 that affective commitment would predict turnover intentions was

supported. Prior studies have also shown a strong relationship between affective

commitment and turnover intentions (Tett & Meyer, 1993). This finding in the

current study assists in solidifying the argument that the characteristics of the

data are consistent with that in the extant literature.Hypothesis 6 that high sacrifice continuance commitment would predict

turnover intentions was supported. This form of continuance commitment

assesses the extent to which there would be sacrifices (e.g., pension plans, tenure)

if an employee left his/her job. This is also consistent with previous literature

(Dunham, Grube, & Castaned, 1994; McGee & Ford, 1987; Powell & Meyer,

2004) and lends credibility to the integrity of the current study’s data.

The fit indices suggested that overall the model was good to excellent. In

all, support was found for the hypotheses of interest and the model fit indices

suggest that most of the relevant variables were specified. These findings arequite encouraging given that, to our knowledge, no empirical assessment of the

l f f i l d f i l ttit d




Limitations

One limitation of this study was that the sample was obtained from publicly-

funded post-secondary institutions, which may limit the generalizability of thefindings. This concern is lessened because the sample came from several different

institutions and was made up of a comparable number of faculty members,

administrative, professional and support staff representing quite different job

types. An additional limitation, however, was the apparently very low response

rate and the inability to specify it with more certainty.

Another limitation was that all variables were assessed with the same method.

This common-method variance problem has been raised in other venues (Kline,

Sulsky, & Rever-Moriyama, 2000; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). However, research

suggests that the common method variance problem is not as big an issue aswas once suspected. For example, Spector (1987) showed that different methods

of collecting job satisfaction measures showed trivial magnitude differences. He

also found that biasing effects of social desirability and acquiescence were quite

small or non-existent. Crampton and Wagner (1994) in their meta-analysis of

27 types of organizational behavior variables—including leadership, culture, job

satisfaction, commitment, goal setting—found that percept-percept inflation is

more the exception than the rule.

The measure of job performance was lacking in a number of respects. First, it

was self-report which would allow self-serving bias to present itself. It was alsoa single item, making it less reliable than the multi-item measures. In addition,

because it was necessary to use a single item across all organizations, this measure

did not mimic exactly any of the performance appraisal measures used at the

institutions.

Finally, although many of the relevant variables were specified, perhaps others

such as job satisfaction or continuance commitment (low alternatives) may have

been included. However, the administrative constraint of the length of time

required by volunteer participants to complete the survey precluded adding in

all possible variables.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

Performance management has received much attention in the industrial and

organizational psychology literature (e.g., Fletcher, 2001). So, too, has the

study of fit between different aspects of the employee and the organization

(Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). It makes intuitive sense that individuals are very

interested in how their performance is measured on the job. If there is somepart of the performance appraisal process they do not agree with, they should

h ti ttit d b t th d i t t d th ttit d




is that people cognitively evaluate how the organization rewards them and how

well that fits with their personal preferences and expectations. This premise is

consistent with other theoretical frameworks common to industrial and organiza-tional psychology. For example, goal-setting theory presumes that individuals seta goal, assess where they are relative to that goal and make adjustments in their

behavior to attain their goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). Equity theory maintainsthat individuals make comparisons between their own inputs and outputs and

those of referent others. If there is a discrepancy, the individuals may changetheir behavior to make the input-output ratios equitable (Adams, 1963). Thus one

implication of this study is that congruence between expectations and experi-enced reality is an important variable in understanding attitudes related to work.

An important finding in this study was that congruence was related to severalimportant criteria. It is reasonable to conclude that people would be affected in

some way by their performance appraisal incongruence in much the same wayas they would by other characteristics of their job, organization or supervisor.

In other words, the fit (or lack thereof) should have a direct effect on attitudestoward the performance appraisal system and also an indirect effect on general

affective responses toward the organization and intentions to leave the organi-zation. Thus, performance appraisal congruency represents an important aspect

of workers’ organizational life. For practitioners this has important implications,

demonstrating that even if the performance appraisal system does not directlycause someone to leave, it could drive down performance through reducedcommitment.

One of the major reasons for using this particular sample was that the institu-tions employing these individuals induce high sacrifice continuance commitment

through provisions like extensive health and benefit plans, pension plans,grievance procedures, and union representation. In addition, even if a faculty

member is dissatisfied with the way his or her performance is measured, there ispossibly much more to lose (e.g., tenure, graduate students, research colleagues,

funded research) than for typical private sector employees. High sacrifice contin-uance commitment was shown to be an important specification in this model,

which suggests that it should be included in studies where such a variable willbe expected to play a role.

Hypothesis 2 also served as model specification. We included a measure of job performance so that the variance due to this construct could be accounted

for. This provided a better test of the model.

Conclusions and Implications

The findings of this study provide a strong point of departure for research intof i l ttit d d th i t f f i l




performance appraisal forms a traditional and large part of the industrial and

organizational psychology literature. However, many employees and employers

perceive performance appraisal as a bureaucratic nuisance (Pettijohn, Pettijohn,& Taylor, 2000). A logical step for both researchers and practitioners is to work to create a performance appraisal system that fits the aspirations of employeesand meets the goals of the employing organization. The link of congruence toperformance appraisal attitudes adds something of substance that could improvethe perceptions of performance appraisal.

It is important that this same congruency assessment process be legitimizedwithin the industrial and organizational psychology literature. For a long timeresearchers using congruency measures have been told that this is not an appro-

priate approach to take when studying a phenomenon (e.g., Edwards, 1993). Thepresent study lends credibility to the argument that using measures of congruencyis legitimate and indeed can account for relevant variance in variables of interest.

In this study the congruency variable was found to play a very important rolein predicting performance appraisal attitudes. Assessing congruence in otherspecific organizational systems such as selection systems, supervisory systems,or promotion systems with the same approach used in this study would likelyassist in understanding employee attitudes toward those systems as well.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67 , 422–436.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1974). Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior relation.

Human Relations, 27 , 1–15.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of

empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.

Balzer, W. K., & Sulsky, L. M. (1990). Performance appraisal effectiveness. In K. R. Murphy &

F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 133–156).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Bannister, B. D., & Griffeth, R. W. (1986). Applying a causal analytic framework to the

Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth (1978) turnover model: A useful reexamination. Journal of

Management , 12, 433–443.

Bartol, K. M., Durham, C. C., & Poon, J. M. L. (2001). Influence of performance evaluation

rating segmentation on motivation and fairness perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 ,

1106–1119.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66 ,

22–42.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value congruency

and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion. Public Personnel Management , 20,

195–205.




Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W., & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee perfor-

mance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31,

903–919.

Burke, R. J., & Wilcox, D. S. (1969). Characteristics of effective employee performance review anddevelopment interviews. Personnel Psychology, 22, 291–305.

Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit

perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 , 875–884.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational

entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 , 294–311.

Cawley, B. D., Keeping L.M., & Levy P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal

process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 614–633.

Chirico, K. E., Buckley, M. R., Wheeler, A. R., Facteau, J. D., Bernardin, H. J., & Beu, D. S.

(2004). A note on the need for true scores in frame-of-reference (FOR) training research. Journal

of Managerial Issues, 16 , 382–395.

Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research:

An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.

Curtis, A. B., Harvey, R. D., & Ravden, D. (2005). Sources of political distortions in performance

appraisals: Appraisal purpose and rater accountability. Group & Organization Management , 30,

42–60.

Dalessio, A., Silverman, W. H., & Schuck, J. R. (1986). Paths to turnover: A re-analysis and review

of existing data on the Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth turnover model. Human Relations, 39,

245–263.

Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1982). Turnover: A lucrative hard dollar phenomenon. Academy of

Management Review, 7 , 212–218.Da Silva, N., Thomas, A., Mayoral, L., Yoshihara, M., & Hutcheson, J. (2002). Organizational

strategy and employee outcomes: A person-organization fit perspective. Paper presented at the

17th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.

Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance

appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 , 248–251.

Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to appraisal

satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal

characteristics. Journal of Management , 16 , 619–632.

Dorfman, P. W., Stephan, W. G., & Loveland, J. (1986). Performance appraisal behaviors: Supervisor

perceptions and subordinate reactions. Personnel Psychology, 39, 579–597.

Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaned, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370–380.

Edwards, J. R., (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence

in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46 , 641–665.

Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavioral research: Critique and

a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.

Edwards, J. R., & Cooper, C. L. (1990). The person-environment fit approach to stress: Recurring

problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational Behavior 11, 293–307.

Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, B. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career

success: The moderating role of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support.

Personnel Psychology, 57 , 305–332.

Evans, E. M., & McShane, S. L. (1988). Employee perceptions of performance appraisal fairness in

two organizations. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 20, 177–191.




Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda.

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74, 473–487.

Fox, S., Bizman, A., & Garti, A. (2005) Is distributional appraisal more effective than the

traditional performance appraisal method? European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 21,165–172.

Gabris, G. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2001). Does performance appraisal contribute to heightened levels of

employee burnout? The results of one study. Public Personnel Management , 30, 157–172.

Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions to contextual and session components

of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 371–377.

Greller, M. M. (1975). Subordinate participation and reactions to the appraisal interview. Journal of

Applied Psychology. 60, 544–549.

Greller, M. M. (1978). The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview. Academy

of Management Journal, 21, 646–658.

Harris, L. (2001). Rewarding employee performance: Line managers’ values, beliefs and perspectives.

International Journal of Human Resource Management , 12, 1182–1192.

Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical

structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,

77 , 890–909.

Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1994). Employee turnover . Cincinnati, OH: South-Western

Publishing.

Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Sellaro, C. L. (1984). The validity of Mobley’s (1977) model of

employee turnover. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance. 34, 141–174.

Inderrieden, E. J., Keaveny, T. J., & Allen, R. E. (1988). Predictors of employee satisfaction with

the performance appraisal process. Journal of Business & Psychology, 2, 306–310.

Jelley, R. B., & Goffin, R. D. (2001). Effects of rater priming and rating scale format on ratingaccuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , 134–144.

Kline, T. J. B., Sulsky, L. M. & Rever-Moriyama, S. D. (2000). Common method variance and

specification errors: A practical approach to detection. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary

and Applied , 134, 401–421.

Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role

of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of

Management , 21, 657–669.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,

measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–28.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005) Consequences of individuals’ fit

at work: A meta-analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, & Person-Supervisorfit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (1999). Total quality management and performance appraisal: An

experimental study of process versus results and group versus individual approaches. Journal of

Organizational Behavior , 20, 445–457.

Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy

of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751–754.

Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001) Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’

perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643–671.

Lefkowitz, J. (2000). The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance ratings:

A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational


Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (1998). The role of perceived system knowledge in predicting




Lievens, F. (2001). Assessor training strategies and their effects on accuracy, inter-rater reliability,

and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , 255–264.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task

motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist , 57 , 705–717.Lovelace, K., & Rosen, B. (1996). Differences in achieving person-organization fit among diverse

groups of managers. Journal of Management , 22, 703–722.

Mani, B. G. (2002). Performance management systems, productivity, and motivation: A case study.

Public Personnel Management , 31, 141–159.

McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment:

Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied


Mero, N. P., Motowidlo, S. J., & Anna, A. L. (2003). Effects of accountability on rating behavior

and rater accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2493–2514.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment:

Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 69–89.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Exten-

sions of a test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,

538–551.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,

and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and

consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 61, 20–52.Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of

hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408–414.

Morrow, P. C., McElroy, J. C., Laczniak, D. S., & Fenton, J. B. (1999). Using absenteeism and

performance to predict employee turnover: Early detection through company records. Journal of

Vocational Behavior , 55, 358–374.

Mount, M. K. (1983). Comparisons of managerial and employee satisfaction with a performance

appraisal system. Personnel Psychology, 36 , 99–110.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supple-

mentary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 31, 268–277.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organi-

zational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Nathan, B. R., Mohrman, A. M., & Milliman, J. (1991). Interpersonal relations as a context for the

effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of

Management Journal, 34, 352–369.

Nemeroff, W. F., & Wexley, K. N. (1979). An exploration of the relationships between perfor-

mance feedback interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers and

subordinates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 25–34.

Noonan, L., & Sulsky, L.M. (2001). Examination of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation

training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a Canadian military sample. Human Perfor-

mance, 14, 3–26.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile

comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34,

487–516.

Efektif Commitent With Pa

Documents

Transcript of Efektif Commitent With Pa