ISSN (Print): 2328-3734, ISSN (Online): 2328-3696, ISSN...

ISSN (Print): 2328-3734, ISSN (Online): 2328-3696, ISSN (CD-ROM): 2328-3688

American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences

AIJRHASS 14-602; © 2014, AIJRHASS All Rights Reserved 0

Available online at http://www.iasir.net

AIJRHASS is a refereed, indexed, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary and open access journal published by International Association of Scientific Innovation and Research (IASIR), USA

(An Association Unifying the Sciences, Engineering, and Applied Research)

PERCEIVED FAIRNESS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

AND PERSONAL FACTORS– A CONCEPTUAL DEBATE

Sangeetha Vasudevan

Loyola Institute of Business Administration

Loyola College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, INDIA

I. Introduction

Effective human resource management is essential for organisations to achieve their work aims (Inayet et al,

2008). Work organisation, personnel selection, training, promotion, career planning, performance appraisal, pay,

and motivation define the scope of human resources management as determinants in developing harmonious

relationships between the organisation and its employees (Bernardin and Russell, 1998).

The issue of employees' performance in furtherance of organizational objectives has occupied management

attention for long. Differences in levels of performance have been attributed to differences in skills and abilities

on the one hand, and to different theories of money on the other. (Frank et al. , 2011)

One of the essential elements in employee related decision making for an organisation is Performance

Appraisal. Performance Appraisal is one of the most commonly used tools in the Indian scenario. Specific to

the Indian IT Sector, Performance Appraisal is a cyclical/ yearly event which is the evaluation methodology to

determine an employee’s reward and growth for the said accounting year, with respect to his/ her performance.

Performance appraisal is one of the most widely researched areas in industrial/organizational psychology

(Murphy & Cleveland, 1993). The traditional research agenda has however, contributed minimally to highlight

the utility of performance appraisal as an organizational and managerial tool. (Walsh, 2003).

In his comprehensive definition of Performance Appraisal, Walsh (2003) states , “Performance appraisal is a

process by which a superior evaluates and judges the work performance of a subordinate. Performance appraisal

systems include the processes and procedures involved in implementing, managing, and communicating the

events involved in performance appraisal. In many cases it is a formal process and is a part of the personnel

management policy.”

Research on performance appraisals (PA) spans an entire range of aspects and constructs that include

psychometric issues, rater/ratee characteristics, cognitive processes, rater training, and appraisal fairness (Bretz,

Milkovich, and Read, 1992). PA and its usage has been a topic of research interest to authors who link usage to

behaioural and organizational outcomes. How PAs are used has proven to influence rating behavior and results

(e.g., Williams, DeNisi, Blencoe, & Cafferty, 1985; Zedeck & Cascio, 1982) and be an important predictor of

employee attitudes and perceptions of their appraiser, the job, and the performance appraisal system as such

(Meyer, Kay, & French, 1965; Prince & Lawler, 1989).

Research has investigated several constructs that can be correlated to appraisal perceptions. However, there is

scarcity in literature pertinent to Personality and Appraisal opinions. This research paper aims to bridge that gap

and conceptually correlate Employee Performance Appraisal Perceptions from the viewpoint of the Personality

and Job Satisfaction levels of an individual.

II. Personal Factors and Performance Appraisal Perceptions

This research attempts at bringing forth and establishing a relationship between Individual Personality,

perceptions and related Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Systems. The constructs that we examine herein

are the Big 5 Personality Traits and Job Satisfaction.

Abstract: Performance Appraisal has been viewed with critical interest by academicians and scholars for

decades. Several variables and constructs influence the research domain of performance appraisal and its

various uses. Perceived Fairness of Performance Appraisal in the global scenario is an issue of discussion in

the scholarly as well as industrial space. There is however, minimal research to establish a relationship

between Personality Traits, Personal Variables and Perceived Satisfaction of Employee Performance

Appraisal Systems. The focus of this paper is to bridge this gap and attempt to establish a conceptual

connect between Persoanlity and Performance Appraisal Perceptions. The conceptual debate aims to

unearth, through a theoretical perspective the influence that the the Big 5 Personality Traits and Job

Satisfaction have with the PA construct.

http://www.iasir.net/

Sangeetha Vasudevan, American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 8(1), September-November,

2014, pp. 10-23

AIJRHASS 14-602; © 2014, AIJRHASS All Rights Reserved Page 11

A. Big 5 Personality Traits

The history of the study of personality is considered as ancient as the subject of psychology itself. Scholars

have, however, shown contradictory opinionswith respect to the influence of individual characteristics on

behavior (Epstein & O’Brien, 1985). Although there was indepth research centered around traits such as need

for achievement (McClelland, 1961), self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), and growth need strength (Hackman &

Oldham, 1975,1980), from time to time, there was a lack of auniversal model or taxonomy to define personality,

creating a “Babel” of concepts and scales (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Efforts to put personality factors into definite brackets began after McDougall (1932) wrote that “Personality

may to advantage be broadly categorised into 5 distinguishable but separate factors, namely intellect, character,

temparament, disposition and temper”. A few years later, Cattell (1943, 1946, 1947, 1948) developed anther

framework wherein 16 primary factors and 8 second order factors were developed.

By the mid eighties, the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality started to become acceptable and gain

popularity among researchers (John & Srivastava, 1999). The FFM is based on the work of Cattel (1943, 1945),

who while working on Allport’s (1937) trait list, developed the legendary 16 Personality Factor (16PF)

questionnaire (Catell, Eber, &Tatsuoka, 1970). Tupes and Christal discovered “five relatively strong and

recurrent factors and nothing more of any consequence” (Tupes&Christal, 1961). This five factor model went

under a lot of scrutiny and was taken up enthusiastically for experimentation by many researchers (e.g.,

Borgatta, 1964; Costa & McCrae, 1987; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; Norman, 1963), and finally was given

the name ‘the Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1981,1990). With strong evidence to back its credibility, the Big Five model

was accepted by scholars and academicians in the eighties. With the availability of advanced statistical tools and

analytical methods, more robust personality taxonomies, and a commonly agreed set of common traits, research

on personality was taken to the next level again by the late 1980s (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Throughout the past decade, there has been an increased agreement that individual differences in personality

may be compositely brought under the umbrella of a hierarchical system consisting of three to seven major

traits, and among all these perspectives, the five-factor models have gained primary importance (John &

Srivastava, 1999; Pervin, 1994). Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness,

agreed upon as the Big 5 Personality traits, emerged from decades of research. This has been traced and

described in detail in the aforesaid section. The Big 5 have been applauded for their ability to condense an

otherwise large number of traits (Hofstede, 1994; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987), their cross-cultural

applicability (McCrae &Costa, 1997), and their capacity to forecast other outcomes. Although the adequacy of

the five-factor model of traits has been debated (e.g., Block, 1995; Pervin, 1994, McAdams, 1992), several trait

measures are currently in wide use (Widiger&Trull, 1997) and the Big Five is today the most accepted and

widely used personality taxonomy and is “a fruitful basis for examining the dispositionalpredictors of

leadership” (Judge et al., 2002).

The Big-Five model offers an integrative framework for personality psychology (Costa & McCrae, 1995;

Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & John, 1992). It focuses on an integral set of behavioral traits, namely; Extraversion,

Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience—and scholars argue that people

can be fathomed and their behaviour can be understood by assessing how much of each of the 5 traits

(proportion) they display in their lives. Workers in this tradition have gatheredsturdy evidence to support

thecross-cultural, varied methodology application methods, and temporal consistency of the Big-Five traits

(McRae & John, 1992). As noted above, however,the Big-Five model has been repeatedly criticized for not

taking note of the action in personality, partly because it does not take into account that people might behave

differently in the different roles they play in theirlives (Block, 1995; McAdams, 1992; Pervin, 1994).

Largely, the objective of the Big-Five assessment inventory is to place people on underlying characteristic

continua as reliably as possible and hence, proponents ofthe model are likely to neglect cross-situational

differences or to look at it as a measurement error (Shadel&Cervone, 1993;Smith & Williams, 1992).

Situational differences in trait expression are thus, not completely understood and treated as a peripheral

concept. Yet, it is an established fact that people, actions and behavior do vary according toroles and situations

(Funder & Colvin, 1991) and that this variation is systematic (Roberts & Donahue, 1994) and meaningful

(Ryan, 1995). Such cross-situational variability seems justified and even acceptable, given the diversity of

human nature and the consequent varied demands made by roles played by individuals and the diversity of the

resources provided within the same.

In the past 2 decaded, the Big Five traits have proven to relate to a huge number of personal and organizational

outcomes in both emperical and meta-analytic studies (e.g., Barrick& Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1980,

1987; Judge et al., 2002). Today the person - situation debate is largely over (Funder, 2001; Hough & Schneider,

1996). However, in view of the effect ofsituationists downplaying the role of personality in predicting behavior

in 1960s, personality researchers, usually investigating the effect of individual differences on behavior, have not

paid enough attention topossible contextual influences on behavior (Funder, 2001).


2014, pp. 10-23


A.1 Big Five Factor Model and Traits

Figure 5 describes the Big 5 model of personality. It consists of Extraversion, Openness to

experience,Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness (Costa &McCrae, 1985; McCrae &John, 1992).

Extraversion assesses the extent of interpersonal interactions and activity/ energy levels of a person.

Adjectivesused for individuals with a high score on the extraversion scale consist of “active, assertive, energetic,

enthusiastic,outgoing, and talkative” (McCrae and John 1992). Individuals with increased openness have

activeimaginations, aesthetic sensitivity, an intellectual interest, wide range of hobbies and interests, and a

preference for change and adventure. Adjectives describing openness include artistic, curious, imaginative,

insightful, and original (McCrae &John,1992). Costa and McCrae (1985) propose conscientious as an

individuals' level of organization, tenacity,and single minded focus in goal-directed behavior. Individuals with

high scores are observed to be the most organized, dependableand dedicated to the task at hand. Adjectives of

this concept are efficient, organized, reliable, responsible, and thorough(McCrae &John, 1992). Costa and

McCrae (1985) suggest that neuroticism trait is composed of people who aremore likely to have psychological

worries, tangential ideas, overt and sudden cravings or urges, and unpredictablecoping responses in a said

environment. Adjectives describing neuroticism include “anxious, self-pitying, tense,touchy, unstable, and

worrying” (McCrae &John, 1992). Lastly, agreeableness tends to be a trait in anindividual's quality of

interpersonal orientation ranging from compassion to antagonism in their thoughts,emotions and behaviours.

Adjectives of agreeableness include “appreciative, forgiving, generous, kind, sympathetic,and trusting” (McCrae

&John, 1992).

Figure 1: Big 5 Personality Dimensions and Traits

As suggested by Costa and McCrae (1988), neuroticism is the most persistent trait across personality measures;

it is evident in nearly every measure of personality. Neuroticism leads to at least two associated tendencies; one

talking about anxiety (instability and stress tendencies), the other relating to one's well being (personal

insecurity and depression). Thus, neuroticism by and large describes a lack of positive psychological

temperament and emotional stability. Costa and McCrae's (1992) measure of the Big Five traits breaks

neuroticism into six aspects: anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, vulnerability, and impulsiveness.

Similar to the Big Five traits in Costa and McCrae's (1992) model, these dimensions point to a higher-order

construct. Individuals who have a high neuroticism index are more likely to experience a variety of problems,

including negative moods (anxiety, fear, depression, irritability) and physical symptoms and disorders. Evidence

also highlights that neurotic individuals are likely to be especially affected by negative life events, and to have

bad moods linger (Suls, Green, & Hills, 1998).

Like neuroticism, extraversion is a prominent factor in personality psychology, as is established by its usage

and presence in most personality measures, and its crucial contribution in major taxonomies of personality (even

those preceding the 5-factor model). Extraversion is ideally related to sociability. It is however seen that

Extraversion is a huge construct that encompasses several other factors. Clark (1997) note, "extraverts are more

sociable, but are also described as being more active and impulsive, less dysphoric, and as less introspective and

self-preoccupied than introverts" (p. 769). Thus, extraverts are observed to be social (interactive and lively), and

also are dominant, ambitious, active, adventuresome and assertive. Extraversion is related as a behavior to


2014, pp. 10-23


positive people and it is generally noted that Extraverts have a large circle of friends and are ideal to take on and

confidently execute leadership roles (Watson & Clark, 1997).

Conscientiousness, which has emerged as the Big Five construct most consistently related to performance across

jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997), is manifested in three related facets-achievement orientation

(hardworking and persistent), dependability (responsible and careful), and orderliness (planful and organized).

Conscientiousness is thus observed to be related to a person's degree of self-control, along with a strong need for

achievement, order, and persistence (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). As one examines these hallmarks of

conscientiousness, it is but implying that the construct is a proven predictor of success at work. Recent empirical

evidence substantiates the significance of conscientiousness at the job, linking the construct to several variables

along with job performance, such as, counterproductive work behaviors (Hogan & Ones, 1997), effective job

seeking behavior (Wanberg, Watt, & Rumsey, 1996), retention (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1994), and

attendance at work (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997). There is additional evidence in research to prove

that conscientious individuals live longer, though the causal processes that are essential to this phenomenon are

not well understood (Friedman et al., 1995).

The other two facets from the 5-factor model are openness to experience and agreeableness. Openness to

experience is observed in people who display intellectance (philosophical and intellectual) and

unconventionality (imaginative, autonomous, and nonconforming). Agreeable persons are cooperative (trusting

of others and caring) as well as likeable (happy, clean hearted and docile). It certainly seems possible that these

traits are related to career success. It is but obvious that the adaptability, creativity, and intellectual bent of mind

of open individuals may be instrumental to success in many job roles. Parallelly, the cooperative trait of

agreeable people may lead to more successful careers, specifically in occupations where teamwork or customer

service is a necessary skill. There is a however a point of distinction between the other Big Five traits and

Openness or Agreeableness. In this scenario, there are several career options in which increased openness and

agreeableness would not be a beneficial trait to possess (e.g., open individuals may be prone to job hopping or

may be unhappy in conventional occupations, extremely agreeable individuals may sacrifice their success in

pleasing others).

A.2 Organisational and Interpersonal Outcomes of Big 5

The Big 5 have been related to several organizational outcomes in the past. For example, conscientiousness has

been compared in several studies to job performance (Barrick& Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, and

Reddon (1999). Whilst the former study establishes that conscientiousness is positivel related to job

performance, the latter suggested that conscientiousness could become a liability in jobs that demand creativity

and innovation. Therefore, high conscientiousness is likely to be a less desirable trait if the job requires high

creativity.

Similarly, studies have investigated the relationships between other Big Five attributes and attitudinal and

behavioral outcomes. Amongst these, job satisfaction, job performance, OCB, and creativity are a few

prominent variables examined. Job satisfaction is a personal outcome that intrigued personality psychologists

over several years (Judge et al., 2002). Two studies by Staw and colleagues (Staw et al., 1986; Staw& Ross,

1985) kick started research on job satisfaction and personality. Judge et al.’s (2002) recent meta-analytic study

cemented and established the credibility of this relationship. They found that while neuroticism, extraversion,

and conscientiousness were related to job satisfaction, results for agreeableness and openness to experience in

relation to job satisfaction were unstable (Judge et al., 2002). Job Satisfaction is being examined as a separate

construct in this study, to investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived use of Performance

Appraisal Systems.

Job performance is one of the most extensively investigated job behaviors in OB and industrial/occupational

psychology (Usman Raja, 2004). The equation between personality and job performance, specially with

reference to the Big Five traits, has been established by several research scholars (e.g. Barrick& Mount, 1991;

Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Orgaisational Citizenship Behaviour is another construct in

the Big 5 arena that has been attempted by a few scholars. It refers to discretionary behaviors of employees that

in total promote the effective functioning of organizations and are not enforceable under the formal agreement

(Organ, 1988, 1997). Research on OCB and personality has not been robust, despite OCB being a crucial

variable in the organizational behavior domain. Very limited evidence exists to establish a relationship between

the Big Five and OCBs (Organ & Ryan, 1995)

Creativity has always been viewed with critical interest to personality psychologists (Feist, 1998) as a variable

to be related to several personality dimensions. “Creativity is defined as thought or behavior that is novel and

useful” (Amabile, 1988). Almost every personality related research has viewed creativity as an attribute that

distinguishes amongst people (Woodman, 1981). A meta-analysis by Feist (1998) explained how the Big Five

dimensions and traits were related to creativity.


2014, pp. 10-23


Although several studies have examined the aforesiad outcomes, there is limited research on the relationship

between the Big5 Personality Traits and Perceived satisfaction of Performance Appraisal Systems. This research

aims to address this gap and establish a correlation between personality traits and perceptions of PA.

B. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a subject of interest not only to the research fraternity, but is also of great relevance to

business employers and employees because of its impact on the workplace (Mirza, 2005). Jobs today require

complex skills and are more demanding in terms of intellectual capacity to deliver, customer interactions and

interpersonal skills. In addition, globalization has created a competitive marketplace, wherein organizational

restructuring and workforce diversity have given birth to a multifaceted work environment. In this context, Job

satisfaction emerges as an issue of primary focus for researchers, where employees seek satisfaction from

multiple sources.

The nature, causes, and consequences of job satisfaction have been the focus of research since the 1930’s

(Locke, 1976). Spector (1996) has noted that close to 12,000 articles, books, and research studies have been

published on the issue of job satisfaction. Measurement of employee job satisfaction at work is a construct that

has been researched extensively by business analysts and organisational psychologists. New dimensions in

workplace related literature, however, is suggestive of considering barometers other than job satisfaction to

measure employee satisfaction and well-being.

The influence of individuals' personality traits on affective and behavioral responses to their job has been

studied by several authors (Agho, Mueller, Price, 1994; Judge, Bono, Locke 2000; Judge, Heller, & Mount,

2002; Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992; Renn& Vandenberg, 1995; Roberts, &Foti, 1998). This belief in the

significance of individual differences is so integral that, for more than half a century, scholars in the field have

blended this notion into their models and theories relating to the determinants of employee satisfaction (Argysis,

1957, 1973; Dubin, 1956; Murray, 1938; Pervin, 1968; and Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). For example

Argysis (1973) stated that people seek jobs that make space for personal as well as professional growth and self-

actualization. Strauss (1974) proposed that workers have two fundamentally varying attitudes toward work,

some perceive work as a means to achieve another objective, while others satiate their need for accomplishment

and self-actualization through their job. Theories like these suggest that differences in orientations toward work

could lead to diverse responses to the exact work environment (O'Reilly, 1977), or as Hackman and Lawler

(1971) suggest individuals may perceive the same job characteristics quite differently. O'Reilly (1977) noted

there has been a huge amount of evidence supporting the importance of individual differences in work behavior

but Weiss and Adler (1984) statement that "researchers have barely scratched the surface on the ways in which

personality constructs may enter into theoretical systems" (p. 43) is still valid after years.

Despite these debates involving individual characteristics, many theorists and researchers opine that the method

to enhance employee satisfaction and performance is to enrich the worker’s job (e.g., Hackman & Lawler, 1971;

Umstot, Bell, & Mitchell, 1976; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Several recognised models have been applied to

ascertain job satisfaction and its relationship with personality, human psychology and other OB related

variables.

B.1 Importance of Job Satisfaction

Considerable research has centered around the ways in which employees respond to their jobs. A large part of

this research has examined the effects of a variety of job-related variables on employee motivation, satisfaction,

and performance. Investigation in this direction has further contributed to methods to enhance productivity and

the quality of work life of employees through the usage and experimentation of job-related variables (e.g.,

Barling, Kelloway, & Iverson, 2003; Blau, 1999; Fried, 1991; Griffin, 1991; Korunka, &Vitouch, 2000; Kulik,

Oldham, & Hackman, 1987; Tivendell, & Bourbonnais, 2000; Pollock, Whitbred, & Contractor, 2000).

Research has consistently indicated that changing various aspects of the job itself may indeed lead to higher

levels of motivation, satisfaction and worker productivity. In fact, some evidence has proven that an employee's

responses to work may be more positively related to the characteristics of the job than to the individual

characteristics of the employee himself (Griffin, 1991; O'Reilly & Roberts, 1975; Stone & Porter, 1985).

Despite the compelling evidevnce, the ideology that a person’s behaviour is governed jointly by personality as

well as environmental factors remains quite strong. Obvious conclusions point out that there exist basic

differences in personality among employees and that these varied characteristics in personality may interact with

the environmental influences to result in differential responses. In the work environment, this dynamic and the

relationship between worker and job characteristics could have crucial implications for different work outcomes.

Today, a huge reason behind successful organizations is perceived to be dependent upon the knowledge and

skills that employees bring in and hence, organizations are viewing employees as assets and not liabilities

(Piturro, 1999). Factors that influence job satisfaction have been viewed with critical interest since the

introduction of the factory system for which managers were required to “maintain a trained and motivated work

force” (Shafritz&Ott, 2001, p. 29; Murray, 1983). Noteworthy companies like Xerox are now conducting


2014, pp. 10-23


company-wide employee motivation and satisfaction surveys annually to ensure that employees are motivated

ans that as an organization, they are doing things right to keep employee morale high and attrition low (Fitter,

1999).

Organizations grasp the ideology that the motivations and perceptions that employees have about their jobs are

the way to attain maximum levels of job satisfaction and productivity. In this arena, the connections are found to

be very complicated. In order to gather more information and establish concrete evidence, researchers would

have to bring in the purview of individual values and motivations, which could be gathered from in-depth

interview techniques. As companies cmpete fiercely and position themselves for success in a dynamic business

environment, they are quick to realize that ignoring the “people factor” can mean result in instant employee

dissatisfaction resulting in decrease in individual as well as organizational performance (Donaldson &Folb,

2000). Hiltebeitel, Leauby, Karkin, and Morris (2000) established a correlation between organizational

performance and employee job satisfaction and several other scholars have theorized that job satisfaction is a

critical antecedent of employee turnover(Mobley, Grifleth, Hand, &Meglino, 1979; Price & Mueller, 1986;

Williams &Hazar, 1986).

Identification of factors that influence job satisfaction provides organizational stakeholders with useful and

actionable information to make informed decisions to plan and execute interventions directed towards increasing

employee job satisfaction (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992).

B.2 Theoretical Background of Job Satisfaction

One of the most comprehensive definitions of Job satisfaction has been proposed by Locke. He defines Job

Satisfaction as “ a self-reported, positive emotional state resultingfrom the appraisal of one’s job or from job

experiences” (Locke, 1976). A thorough review of all related literature brought forth several interesting

perspectives on job satisfaction. Campbell and his colleagues (Campbell, Dunnette, & Lawler, 1970) bifurcated

these perspectives about job satisfaction into two generic categories--content theories and process theories.

Content theories are based on the assumption that the satiation of needs results in jobsatisfaction. Several

motivation and psychological theories are categorized as Content Theories by scholars. The objective of these

models is to enlist, detail, and critically examine the factors that influencejob satisfaction.

Maslow’s (1971) hierarchy of needs theory looks at the personal needs that an individuallooks for in his

interactions with his work environment. The employee’s needs direct him or her to act and present himself/

herself in a manner that is acceptable to both the company and his/ hercolleagues. The Maslow model introduces

a way for understanding the needs of the individualand the worker (Benson &Dundis, 2003). The Maslow

model proposes that to be satisfactory, jobs have to cater to a variety of needs for the employee including:

1) Basic physiological needs,

2) Safety andsecurity needs,

3) Socialization needs,

4) Esteem needs, and

5) Self actualization needs.

Figure 5: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory strikes the right chord because of two compelling reasons; it puts forth both

a theory of humanmotives by categorising human needs in a hierarchy, and a theory of human motivation that

correlatesthese needs to general human behavior. Wahba andBridwell’s (1975) conducted a factor analysis of

the literature review on Maslow’s needs. The conclusions revealed that none of the researchers showed all of


2014, pp. 10-23


Maslow’s five needs categories asindependent factors. The most debatable aspect of Maslow’s theory, however,

is concerned with the concept ofneed in itself. There is evidence that employees seek motives and indulge in

behaviors that are completely unrelated to the satisfaction of needs (Harlow, 1953; White, 1959). Maslow’s

hierarchy isuseful when the causes are intuitive, but when the reasons for motivation become less obscuredue to

social processes, the categories are difficult to define (Groves, Kahalas, & Erickson,1975). Neher (1991) opines

that people do have basic needs, but among these are needs that Maslow does not acknowledge as necessary for

all round development. These needs are at a higher plane, for example, those that involve a great deal of

organizational cultural input. This is certainly more than what is necessary to gratifyneeds of a lower order. In

particular, many higher needs undoubtedly require encouragement from theenvironment for their development.

Maslow’s theory is practical and understandable. The categorization of needs in a definite hierarchy from basic

needs to self actualization needs is what makes it most appealing. The broad theory of having to satisfy them in

ascending order may be practically implementable in a stable world order where organizations provide

employees with basic levels ofsatisfaction concerning security and provide certain conditions as a platform for

progressingtowards higher levels of fulfillment. However, contrary to this idealistic assumption, the business

environment today is frustratingly dynamic. In this day and age of business, organizations are transforming by

downsizing, restructuring, delayering, andreorganizing, all of which have left employees with low levels of

confidence, trust, and loyaltytowards their employers (Wooldridge, 1995). Maslow’s model conceptualizes

employees’motivational needs from lower levels to higher levels to the ultimate stage of self-actualizationby

viewing the individual in relation to the totality of his or her environment. However, Stum(2001) states that in

today’s challenging environment, it may be better to view theemployer/employee dynamic that takes place

between an individual and the organization.

Frederick Herzberg (1959, 1966, 1968, 1976) proposes a two-factor theory of motivation and satisfaction. A

generic assumption prior to the emergence of Herzberg’s two-factor theory stated that if an individual was

dissatisfied with a factor related to their job, the desired level of satisfaction could be achieved by improving

upon the factor. Herzberg and his colleagues developedthe two-factor (or motivation-hygiene) theory which

maintains that things which satisfy peoplein their work and things that dissatisfy people in their work consist of

mutually exclusive factors(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). This theory was a refreshing differentiator

from the previously proposed hierarchy of needs theory of Maslow’s. Contrary to Maslow’s theory of

motivation, which was centered aroundthe extent of deficient need satisfaction, Herzberg’s theory is based on

the belief thatsatisfaction is derived from intrinsic factors called motivators, yet dissatisfaction comes

fromextrinsic factors, termed hygiene factors (Egan, 2001; Shafritz&Ott, 2001).

Sergiovani and Caver (1980) and Miskel’s (1982) criticism of Herzberg’s study is based on the critique that the

study is method bound. That is, results are replicable only when the critical-incidenttechnique and in-depth

interview methods are used. Other scholars also state the same criticism in their review of the two factor theory

and propound that themain limiting factor of Herzberg’s two-factor model is that it is bound by the critical

incidentmethod used in the original research (Miskel, 1982; Young & Davis, 1983).Hoy and Miskel (1982) and

King (1970) opine that studies employing rating scales or other questionnaire schemata generally have

notsupported Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Herzberg’s two-factor theory is widely known in management

circles, but several scholars have questioned its applicability to work environment settings

(Ruthankoon&Ogunlana, 2003). However, Leach and Westbrook (2000), in their study of jobsatisfaction and

motivation in a R&D environment, generally validate Herzberg’s theory.

As the work environment continues to change with rapid influences, there are several factors to be considered

apart from the intrinsic need of employees. The influence of extrinsic elements also needs to be focused on.

Process theories provide this distinct framework where the emphasisis laid on the interaction of individual

attitudes,values, and needs with characteristics of the job to create job satisfaction. These theories rejectthe

supposition that job satisfaction can be affected by giving a person more of a variable thatcan lead to satisfaction

(Gruneberg, 1979). According to Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory, people’smotivation for doing something

will proportionate to the value they place on the potential outcomes. Porter and Lawler took Vroom’s theory

further by connecting it to the amount of energy a person would be required to invest for a particular activity. In

other words prior to obtaining the motivation to perform an activity, humans will hav a tendancy to calculate the

value of the estimated outcome and the energy they are required to invest to achieve it. These factors largely

determine howmotivated they will be to take action (Porter & Lawler, 1986).

Other theories elucidated here speak of the breadth of job satisfaction and motivation research. The Agency

Theory suggests that certain incentives will move the interests of managers more in line with the interests of

owners. Equity theory suggests employees are satisfied and motivated when the ratio of their efforts to reward is

proportionate to that of their co workers. Controltheory states that the more people feel they are in control of

their lives and their jobs, the morethey will be able to accept and acclimatize themselves to change. However,

none of these theories are well researched,documented, or validated (Luthans, 2002).

One model that elicits particular interest because of its potential applicability to today’schanging global work

environment is Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) theory of jobcharacteristics. Their theory arises from the work


2014, pp. 10-23


by Turner and Lawrence (1965) that examinesthe relationship between task attributes and job satisfaction in

forty-seven industry jobs. Fromthis and other research by Blood (1969), Blood and Hulin (1967), and Hackman

and Lawler(1971), their theory suggests that employee attitudes and behaviors (such as employees’ need

forpersonal growth and development at work) are responsible for their responses to thecharacteristics of the job.

Hackman and Oldham (1975) pursued their work in motivation theoryby developing not only a comprehensive

model of work motivation, but also a measurement tool(the Job Diagnostic Survey) to identify the various

components of their model. However, this theory and the model has been examined from another perspective in

this study and will hence be described in detail in later parts.

B.3 Measurement of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been defined as the feeling an individual has about his or her job and one’s effectiveness in

response to a situation (Locke, 1976). According to the study by Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992), the

traditional belief held by practitioners and researchers is that job satisfaction leads to certain behaviors. They

posit that the satisfied worker is assumed to be generally more conscientious and hence, more productive. For

example, overall performance ratings by supervisors have been found to be better for more persons who are

more content in their jobs, according to Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). Lawler and Porter (1967) suggest that

a person may behave in certain ways and then report his or her satisfaction to tally with or be in accordance with

these behaviors. Moreover, Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) suggest that the level of satisfaction may also

serve as a channel through which a person perceives the work situation. They suggest that satisfaction may not

enter into a causal sequence at all, but may be merely a byproduct or epiphenomenon of the work situation,

which in turn, causes an individual to report satisfaction in certain ways.

Other measurements of job satisfaction, which have been found in literature are personal correlates of job

satisfaction. Researchers such as Dalton and Marcis (1987); Forgionne and Peters (1982); Mottaz, (1986); and

Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969), all indicate that physical characteristics and demographics such as age,

gender, and race, and their relationship to job satisfaction have not been consistent or conclusive. All of these

authors do suggest that the better predictor of satisfaction may be the proposition of promotional opportunity by

the employer. The authors also suggest that there are individual differences in how important opportunity is to

people based on individual differences in the form of a personality variable (Myers &McCaully, 1985). Cranny,

Smith, and Stone (1992) contend that the JDI facet scales have helped to achieve

the kinds of changes needed in particular work situations and to evaluate the success of interventions designed

to bring about a higher level of satisfaction. As mentioned by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969), changes are

usually introduced in the hope that improvements in facet satisfaction will, in turn, affect broader areas of

employee satisfaction.

The literature in job satisfaction has substantially contributed to the understanding of antecedents of job

satisfaction using global measurements (Arnold et al. , 2009; Babin and Boles, 1996; Kim et al. , 2009).

However, global measures of job satisfaction have been criticized because they have failed to provide an

accurate assessment of individual aspects of job satisfaction (Churchill et al. , 1974). In responding to the

criticism against global measurements of job satisfaction, researchers have developed multifaceted job

satisfaction scales (Churchill et al. , 1974; Smith et al. , 1969; Wood et al. , 1986).

B.4 Job Satisfaction Related Constructs

A number of studies (Arveyet al. , 1989; Ezzedeen, 2003; Griffin, 2001; Gu and Siu, 2009; Gunluet al. , 2010;

Kusluvan and Kusluvan, 2005; McCain et al. , 2010; Oshagbemi, 2000; Ryuet al. , 2010; Spector, 1997; Tepeci

and Bartlett, 2002) found that there are a number of factors affecting job satisfaction related to the

establishment, such as employment status (permanent, temporary), duration of employment, location of the

establishment, content of the work (the job itself and its components), designation, learning and growth

opportunities, the work routine and timings, compensation, promotion and growth options, supervisory style of

seniors and bosses, participation in the decision making process, dynamics within the organization and with

colleagues, organizational culture, benefits and perks, job security, physical conditions, shifts, job-family

adaptation, organizational support, employee empowerment, organizational climate, job orientation,

understaffing and job-employee adaptation, as well as such demographic factors as age, gender, marital status,

number of years of experience and level of education. Moreover, authors have emphasized the fact that evidence

on which factors count more in job satisfaction is scant. Measuring job satisfaction provides feedback in terms

of diagnosing potential problems as well as productivity issues (Flores and Rodríguez, 2008). New findings

along with the new implementations make it necessary for management to employ them in order to be effective

and efficient. The effects and extension of new findings and their managerial implications as well as perceptions

of managers by employees will yield clues to the operational use of new findings and implementations.

Studies into psychological empowerment (Hechanovaet al. ,2006; Dewettinck and Van Ameijde, 2007;

Laschingeret al. , 2004; Spreitzer, 1995,1996; Spreitzeret al. , 1997) pay particular attention to job satisfaction.

What is more, studies of behavioral empowerment (Hardy and O'Sullivan, 1998; Saglam, 2003) and


2014, pp. 10-23


psychological empowerment (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Çöl, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse,

1990) bring the question of the level of impact of behavioral and psychological empowerment on job

satisfaction to the surface.

Employee empowerment is thought to enhance job satisfaction. For example, He et al. (2010) show that

employee empowerment has positive effects on perceived service quality and job satisfaction. There has been a

strong emphasis on the relation between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction in the studies

performed (Aryee and Chen, 2006; Kuoet al. , 2007; Sahin, 2007; Spreitzeret al. , 1997; Wang and Lee, 2009).

Behavioral empowerment, convenient communications, an atmosphere of trust, and motivational tools provided

by employers lead to a positive impact on job satisfaction (Babin and Boles, 1996; Yoon et al. , 2001).

Employee empowerment bridges the gap between decision-makers and employees and thereby shortens the time

duration of tasks. Any type of managerial style that can pave the way for developing the feeling of self-efficacy

will yield employee empowerment. Empowered individuals will have an enhanced role in the organization, will

take initiatives, and their participation in the activities of the organization will be enhanced.

Though research has focused on the psychological impact of job satisfaction and other constructs, little evidence

is found to connect employee performance appraisal perceptions and job satisfaction. An attempt is made in this

research to support this theory.

III. Conclusion

An attempt has been made in this research article to establish a conceptual debate centering around the various

aspects of the Big 5 Personality Traits, Job Satisfaction and their relationship with Perceived Employee

Appraisal Satisfaction. There are several other variables that have not been included in this research.

Organisational, System Related and other Job related factors have not been analyzed in depth.

Bibliography and References Abdula M, Adam Y, Kahn Z, 1999. Assessing health staff performance in Mozambique: the perspectives of the public and private sector. Research paper produced for the study Measuring Staff Performance in reforming health systems funded through a research grant of the

European Union

Adams, J.S. (1963), "Toward an understanding of inequity", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 422-36.

Agho, A., Mueller, C., &Price, J. (1994). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations,

46, 1007-1027.

Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Amabile, T. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10: 123-167. Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organizations. New York: Harper &Row. Armstrong M and Baron A, 1998. Performance Management – the new realities. The Institute for Personnel Development, London.

Armstrong M and Baron A, 2010 Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management, Kogan Page

Aydin, Inayet; Karaman-Kepenekci, Yasemin. Principals' opinions of organisational justice in elementary schools in Turkey, Journal of Educational Administration 46.4 (2008): 497-513.

Babin, Barry and James S Boles (1996), 'The Effects of Perceived Co-worker Involvement and Supervisor Support on Service Provider

Role Stress, Performance, and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Retailing 72 (Spring), 57-77. Bach S, Sisson K, 2000 (editors). Personnel Management: a comprehensive guide to theory and practice. Blackwell Publishers.

Bach, S. (2005). New directions in performance management. In Bach, S. (Eds.), Managing Human Resources: Personnel Management in

Transition. Oxford: Blackwell. Balzer, W K and Sulsky, L M (1990), "Performance appraisal effectiveness", in Murphy, K.R. and Saal, F.E. (Eds), Psychology in

Organizations: Integrating Science and Practice, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 133-56.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Barrick, R. M., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions andjob performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,

44: 1-26. Benson, S. G., & Dundis, S. P. (2003). Understanding and motivating health care employees:Integrating Malsow’s hierarchy of needs,

training and technology. Journal of NursingManagement, 11, 315-320.

Bernardin, H. J., and Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work. Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Company.

Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), "Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness", in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman,

M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in Organizations, JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55. Bies, R.J. and Shapiro, D.L. (1987), "Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal accounts", Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, pp.

199-218.

Black, J. S., &Gregersen, H. B. ; “Participative decision making: An integration of multiple dimensions” Human Relations, 1997, 50, 859-878.

Blau, G. (1999). Testing the longitudinal impact of work variables and performance appraisal satisfaction on subsequent overall job

satisfaction. Human Relations, 52, 1099-1113.

Block, 1995. A contrarian view of the five facor approach to personalitydescription. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 187-215.

Blood, M. R. (1969). Work values and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 456- 459.

Blood, M. R., & Hulin, C. L. (1967). Alienation, environmental characteristics and worker responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 284-290.

Boachie-Mensah, Francis; Dogbe, Ophelia Delali. Performance-Based Pay as a Motivational Tool for Achieving Organisational

Performance: An Exploratory Case Study, International Journal of Business and Management 6.12 (Dec 2011): 270-285. Boland T, Fowler A, 2000. A systems perspective of performance management in public sector organiza-tions. The International Journal of

Public Sector Management, 13 Issue 5. MCB University Press.

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Aydin,+Inayet/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Karaman-Kepenekci,+Yasemin/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+Educational+Administration/$N/49119/DocView/220434510/fulltext/7A4A635243E74480PQ/1?accountid=39490



http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Boachie-Mensah,+Francis/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Dogbe,+Ophelia+Delali/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/International+Journal+of+Business+and+Management/$N/307069/DocView/913505345/fulltext/449E656C22F94C01PQ/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/International+Journal+of+Business+and+Management/$N/307069/DocView/913505345/fulltext/449E656C22F94C01PQ/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/49119/Journal+of+Educational+Administration/02008Y07Y01$232008$3b++Vol.+46+$284$29/46/4?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/49119/Journal+of+Educational+Administration/02008Y07Y01$232008$3b++Vol.+46+$284$29/46/4?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/307069/International+Journal+of+Business+and+Management/02011Y12Y01$23Dec+2011$3b++Vol.+6+$2812$29/6/12?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/307069/International+Journal+of+Business+and+Management/02011Y12Y01$23Dec+2011$3b++Vol.+6+$2812$29/6/12?accountid=39490


2014, pp. 10-23


Borgatta, E. F. 1964. The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 12: 8-17.

Boudreau JW, Boswell WR, Judge TA, Bretz RD Jr. (2001). Effects of personality, cognitive ability, and fit on job search and separation among employed managers. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 54, 25-50.

Bowman, J. S. 1994. At Last, an Alternative to Performance Appraisal: Total Quality Management. Public Administration Review 54,129-

136. Brayfield, A. H., and Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.

Bretz, R. D., Jr., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns,

directions, and implication. Journal of Management, 18, 321-352. Bruden, A., 2009. Integrated performance management: Linking strategic, operational and individual performance. Proceedings of the

Performance Measurement Association Confer-ence. Otago, New Zealand, 14-17 April 2009.

Buchan J, 1994. Paying for Performance. Nursing Management 1 (6): 12-13. Campbell, J. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Lawler, E. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Carroll, S. J., and Schneier, C. E. (1982). Performance Appraisal and Review Systems: The Identification, Measurement, Development of

Performance in Organizations. Dallas: Scott, Foresman and Company Cascio, W. F. (1987). Applied Psychology in Personnel Management. 3rd Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Castka P; C J Bamber; J M Sharp; P Belohoubek, 2001 Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams Team

Performance Management; 2001; 7, 7/8; ABI/INFORM Global

Cattel, R. B. 1943. The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 38: 476-506.

Cattel, R. B. 1945. The principal trait clusters for describing personality. Psychological Bulletin, 42: 129-161.

Cattel, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. 1970. Handbook fo r the Sixteen Personality Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: IP AT. 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(4): 615–633.

Center for Business Performance, Cranfield School of Business 2000, Literature on Performance Measurement and Management Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74, 130-135.

Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K.R. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Individual Differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coens, T. and Jenkins, M. ( 2000). Abolishing Performance Appraisals, San Francisco, CA, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Cohen-Charash, Y. &Spector, P. E. (2001). "The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 86 (2), 278- 321.

Colquitt, . A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H. &Yee Ng, K. (2001). "Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research," Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1980. Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 668-678.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1987. Validation of five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal o f Personality

and SocialPsychology, 52: 81-90.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1988. Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 853-863.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 2002. NEO PI-R professional manual. Psychological assessment resources, Inc. FL: Lutz.

Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee Involvement: Methods for improving performance and work attitudes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications. Cranny, C, J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it effects their performance.

New York: Lexington Books.

Cropanzano, R. and Folger, R. (1989), "Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: beyond equity theory", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 293-9.

Cropanzano, R. and Byrne, Z.S. (2001), "When it's time to stop writing policies: a procedural justice perspective", Human Resource

Management Review, Vol. 11 Nos 1-2, pp. 31-54. Dachler, H. P and B. Wilport, B. (1978). "Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organizations: A Critical Analysis,"

Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 23, 1-39;

Dalton, A. H., & Marcis, J. G. (1987). Gender differences in job satisfaction among young adults. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277-298.

David Otley (1999) Performance Management – A framework for Management Control Systems Research, Management Accounting

Research Deborah G Ancona, David F Coldwell, 2000, Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance Deming, W.E. 1950.

Elementary Principles of the Statistical Control of Quality, JUSE

Deming, E. (1986). Out Of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. and Meglino, B.M. (1984). A Cognitive View of the Performance Appraisal Process: A Model and Research

Propositions Organizational Behavior And Human Performance, 33, 360-396.

DeVries, D. L., Morrison, A. M., Shullman, S. L., &Gerlach, M. L. (1981). Performance Appraisal On The Line. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of

Social Issues, 31, 137-149 Digman, J. M. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of five-factor model. Annual Review o f Psychology, 41: 417-440.

Donaldson, R., & Folb, B. (2000). Catching falling stars at the workplace. Supervision, 61 (3), 6- 8.

Dovlo D, Sagoe K, Ntow S, Wellington E, 1999. Staff Performance in the Ghana Health Service. Re-search paper produced for the study

Measuring Staff Performance in reforming health systems funded through a research grant of the European Union.

Dubin, R. (1956). Industrial workers worlds: A study of the central life interests of individual workers. Social Problems, 3, 131-142.

Dutra, J.S. (2001), São Paulo, in Dutra, J.S. (Coord.). Egan, S. D. (2001). Motivation and satisfaction of Chicago public school teachers: An analysis based on the Herzberg Motivation Theory.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (8), 2639. (UMI No. 3023683).

Epstein, S. & O’Brien, E. J. 1985. The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 98: 513-537. Fay, Christine Clancy, 2006, University of Connecticut, Social Context of the Performance Appraisal Process: Exploring Individual,

Organizational, Job, and Social Effects on Employee Reactions to Performance Appraisal


2014, pp. 10-23


Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290-309.

Fernandes, C. &Awamleh, R. (2006). "Impact of Organizational Justice in an Expatriate Work Environment," Management Resources News, 29 (11), 701- 712.

Fitter, F. (1999). The human factor. Knowledge Management, June, 54-62.

Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1992), "A due process metaphor for performance appraisal", Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 129-77.

Folger, R. and Cropanzano R. (1998) Organizational Justice And Human Resource Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ford, D. K. 2004. Development of a performance appraisal training program for the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 550-563.

Forgionne, G. A., & Peters, V. E. (1982). The influence of sex on managers in the service sector. California Management Review, 25, 72-83.

Fowler A, 1990. Performance Management: the MBO of the ‘90s’? In Personnel Management. July 1990 Fried, Y. (1991). Meta-analytic comparisons of the job diagnostic survey and job characteristics inventory as correlates of work satisfaction

and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 690-697.

Frost, S. E. (Ed.). (1972). Masterworks of philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 135- 140). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Funder, D. C, & Colvin, C. R. (1991). Explorations in behavioral consistency: Properties of persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 773 - 794.

Gardner, C.E. (2008), "Employee evaluation: is it worth the effort?", DVM Magazine, January 1, p. 4F.

Gilles E St- Amant, Claire IsaBelle, Helene Fournier 2008 , A current literature review of the concept of performance in virtual teams,

National Library of Canada

Goldberg, L. R. 1981. Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler L. (Ed.), Review o f Personality and Social Psychology, 2: 141-166. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative “description of personality”: The Big Five factor structure. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 59: 1216-1229. Goldberg, L. R. 1992. The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4: 26-42.

Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor

models. In I.Mervielde, I. Deary, F. DeFruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, 7: 7-28. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R. In press. The comparative validity of adult personality inventories: Applications of a consumer-testing framework. In S.R. Briggs, J.M. Chhek, & E.M. Donahue (Eds.) Handbook of adult personality inventories, New York: Plenum Publishing Corp.

Greenberg, J. (1986a), "Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp.

340-. Greenberg, J. (1986b), "The distributive justice of organizational performance evaluations", in Bierhoff, H.W., Cohen, R.L. and Greenberg,

J. (Eds), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 337-51.

Greenberg, J. (1990), "Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow", Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 399-432.

Greenberg, J. (1993), "The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational categories of organizational justice", in Cropanzano, R.

(Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 79-103.

Griffin, R.W. (1991). Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors: a long-term investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 425-435.

Groves, D. L., Kahalas, H., & Erickson, D. L. (1975). A suggested modification to Maslow’s need hierarchy. Social Behavior and

Personality, 3 (1), 65-69. Gruneberg, M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. New York: Macmillan Press.

Hackman, J.R., &Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology {monograph}, 55, 229-286.

Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 60: 159-170. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design o f work: test of theory. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Harlow, H. F. (1953). Mice, monkeys, men, and motives. Psychological Review, 60, 23-32.

Herzberg, F. (1959). Motivation to work. New Brunswick, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Company. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 18, 70-80.

Herzberg, F. (1976). The managerial choice. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irvin.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Heslin, P. A. (1998). "Negotiating Effectively: The Role of Fairness," Journal of St. James Ethics Society.

Hiltebeitel, K.M., Leauby, B. A., Karkin, J. M., & Morris, T. W. (2000). Job satisfaction among entry level accountants. CPA Journal, 70

(5), 76-79. Hofstede, G. (1994), "Business Cultures," UNESCO Courier, 47 (4), 12-17.

Homans, C.C. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, NY.

Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. 1996. Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations'. 31-88. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, M.S. (1979), "Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations", Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 349-71. Ismail, A., Zaidi Sulaiman, A., Al-Banna Mohamed, H. &Mohd Sani, R. (2011). "Procedural Justice as a Moderator in the Relationship

between Performance Appraisal Communication and Job Satisfaction," Negotium, 5, 162-186.

Javier Martinez 2001 Assessing Quality, Outcome and Performance Management, Institute for Health Sector Development, London John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,

measurement, and theoretical perspectives. IN L. A. Pervin and O.P. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research: 102-138,

New York: Guilford Press

Johns, G., Xie, J.L., &Fang, Y. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal of Management, 18, 657-677.

Joiner, B.L. 1994. Fourth Generation Management: The New Business Consciousness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Judge, T. and G. Ferris. 1993. Social Context of Performance Evaluation Decisions. Academy of Management Journal. 36, 80-105. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., &Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of

Applied Satisfaction, 85, 237-249.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 87: 765-780.


2014, pp. 10-23


Kane, J.S., Russell, J.E.A., & Bernardin, HJ. (1998). Performance appraisal and management. In HJ. Bernardin & J. Russell (Eds.), Human

resource management: An experiential approach (2nd ed., pp. 72-107). New York: McGraw-Hill. 72-107. Kimiz, D. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice (p. 21). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Inc., (Chapter 1). Knowledge Worker

Forum, Knowledge Workers (2006). [Online] Available:

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Int-Loc/Knowledge-Workers.html (February 16, 2011). King, N. (1970). Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychological Bulletin, 74 (1), 18-31.

Klauss, R., & Bass, B. M. (1982). Interpersonal communication in organizations. New York: Academic Press.

Klasson, C.R., Thompson, D.E. and Luben, G.L. (1980), "How defensible is your performance appraisal system?", Personnel Administrator, Vol. 25, pp. 77-83.

Kohli, AS and Deb, T 2009. Performance Management, Oxford University Press

Koontz, Harold, Making MBO Effective, California Management Review (pre-1986); Fall 1977; 20, 000001 Korunka, C., &Vitouch, O. (2000). Effects of implementation of information technology on employees strain and job satisfaction: A

context-dependent approach. Work and Stress, 13, 341-363.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1996). Seven lessons for leading the voyage to the future. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard,

(Eds.), The leader of the future (pp. 99-110).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1996). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1997). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1999). Psychometric properties of the Leadership Practices Inventory (updated). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.

Kulik, C.T., Oldham, G.R., &Hackman, J.R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278-296.

Landy, F.J., Barnes, J.L. and Murphy, K.R. (1978), "Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 751-4.

Landy, F.J., & Farr, J.L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin. 87. 72-107.

Lawler, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1967). The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 7, 20-28. Leach, F. J., & Westbrook, J. D. (2000). Motivation and job satisfaction in one government research and development environment.

Engineering Management Journal, 12 (4), 3-8.

Leventhal, G.S. (1980), "What should be done with equity theory?", in Gergen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social

Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social

interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer-Verlag. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R. and Earley, R. (1990). Voice, Control and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Concerns In

Fairness Judgments. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp.127-1350). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Longenecker, Clinton O; Goff, Stephen J, Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: A Matter of Perspective, S.A.M. Advanced Management

Journal 57.2 (Spring 1992): 17. Luthans, F. (2002). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mamoria, C. B. (1995). Personnel Management. New Delhi: Himalaya Publishing House.

McGregor, D. M. (1957). The Human Side of Enterprise. The Management Review, 46, 22-28. Martínez J, 2000. Managing Staff Performance in Developing Countries: Issues and lessons from an international research study. Draft

report from a research study funded by the European Union.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and productivity (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), "Integrating justice and social exchange: the differing effects of fair

procedures and treatment on work relationships", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 738-48.

McAdams D. P. 1992. The five-factor model of personality: A critical appraisal. Journal o f Personality, 60: 329-361. McClelland, D. C. 1961. The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.

Meyer, H.H., Kay, E. and French, J.R.P. Jr (1965), "Split roles in performance appraisal", Harvard Business Review, pp. 123-9,

January/February. Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management

Review, 1(1), 61-98.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, andapplication. Sage Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resources Management Review,

11(3), 299-326.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitments to the organizations: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1),

20-52.

Mirza, Saleem, 2005 ; Job Satisfaction Among Research And Development Scientists: The Relationship Of Leadership Practices And Job Characteristics; Thesis submitted to Capella University, June, 2005

Miskel, C. G. (1982). Motivation in educational organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18 (3), 65-88.

Mobley, W., Grifleth, R., Hand, H., & Meglino, B. (1 979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process.

Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.

Moen, R. and Nolan, T. 1987. Process Improvement, Quality Progress, Sept. 1987

Moorman, R.H. (1991), "Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55.

Mowday, R. (1991), "Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations", in Steers, R. and Porter, L. (Eds), Motivation and Work

Behavior, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 111-31. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Organizational linkages: Thepsychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Longenecker,+Clinton+O/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Goff,+Stephen+J/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/S.A.M.+Advanced+Management+Journal/$N/40946/DocView/231242032/fulltext/798B76C74E6C4676PQ/1?accountid=39490



http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/40946/S.A.M.+Advanced+Management+Journal/01992Y04Y01$23Spring+1992$3b++Vol.+57+$282$29/57/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/40946/S.A.M.+Advanced+Management+Journal/01992Y04Y01$23Spring+1992$3b++Vol.+57+$282$29/57/2?accountid=39490


2014, pp. 10-23


Mondy RW, Sharplin A, Premeauz S R, 1990. Management and Organizational Behavior.Allyn and Bacon.

Murphy, Kevin R; Garcia, Magda; Kerkar, Shanta; Martin, Carmen; Balzer, William K; Relationship Between Observational Accuracy and Accuracy in Evaluating Performance Journal of Applied Psychology 67.3 (Jun 1982): 320.

Murphy, K. R., and J. N. Cleveland. (1991). Performance Appraisal: An Organizational. Perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &

Bacon. Murphy, K. (1992) and Cleveland, J.N. "Analyzing Performance Appraisal as Goal-Directed Behavior", in G. Ferris and K. Rowland (eds)

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 10, pp. 121-85.

Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Murray, M. L. (1983). Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction experienced by nurse-faculty in baccalaureate nursing programs. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 44 (2), 457. (UMINo. 831337).

Myers, I. B., & McCaully, M. (1985). A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Neely A, Gregory M, Platts K, 1995. Performance measurement system design – a literature review and research agenda. International

Journal of Operations and Production Management; 15 (4): 80-116. Neely A, 1999. The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next? International Journal of Operations and Production

Management; 19 (2): 205-208.

Neher, A. (1991). Maslow’s theory of motivation: A critique. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31 (3), 89-112.

Obisi, C. (2011). Employee performance appraisal and its implication for individual and organizational growth. Australian Journal of

Business and Management Research, 1 (9), 92-97.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2): 85-97.

Organ, D. W. & Rayan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior.

Personnel Psychology, 48 775-802. O'Reilly, C.A. (1977). Personality-job fit: Implications for individual attitudes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human

Perfromance, 18, 36-46.

O'Reilly, C., &Roberts, K. (1975). Individual differences in personality, position in the organization, and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 144-150.

Ostroff, C. (1993). Rater Perceptions, Satisfaction and Performance Ratings. Journal of Organizational Psychology. 66, 345-356. Palaiologos, Anastasios; Papazekos, Panagiotis; Panayotopoulou, Leda. Organizational justice and employee satisfaction in performance

appraisal,Journal of European Industrial Training 35.8 (2011): 826-840.

Pearl Kondola 2006, The psychology of Effective Business Communications in Geographically Dispersed Teams, Cisco Limited Pervin, L. (1968). Perfromance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 56-68.

Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 103-113.

Pillutla, M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1999). On fairness and justice inbargaining and in allocation decisions and procedures. Unpublished

manuscript.

Piturro, M. (1999). Alternatives to downsizing. Management Review, 88 (9), 37-42.

Pollock, T., Whitbred, R., &Contractor, N. (2000). Social information processing and job characteristics: A simultaneous test of two theories with implications for job satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 26, 292-330.

Porter, L. W. & Lawler, E. E. (1986). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Prince, J. B., & Lawler, E. E. (1986). Does salary discussion hurt the developmental performance appraisal? Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Decision Processes, 37, 357-375.

Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover among hospital employees.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2003) Understandingthe People and Performance Link: Unlocking the Black Box. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Raja, Usman; ‘The Relationship of the Big Five Personality Dimensions to Personal and Organizational Outcomes: Answering the

Questions Who! and When?’ Thesis submitted to John Molson School of Business Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Reneker, M., &Steel, V. (1989). Performance Appraisal: Purpose and Techniques. In Creth, S., &Duda, F. (Eds.), Personnel Administration

in Libraries (pp. 152-220). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Renn, R., &Vandenberg, R. (1995). The critical psychological states: An underrepresented component in job characteristics model research. Journal of Management, 21, 279-303.

Robbins, S., and Judge, T. (2007). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Roberts, B. W., & Donahue, E. M. (1994). One personality, multiple selves: Integrating personality and social roles. Journal of Personality, 62, 199-218.

Roberts, H., &Foti, R. (1998). Evaluating the interaction between self-leadership and work structure in predicting job satisfaction. Journal of

Business Psychology, 12, 257-267. Roberts, Gary E; “Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works”; Public Personnel Management 32.1

(Spring 2003): 89.

Roberts, G. E. and T. Reed (1996). "Performance Appraisal Participation, Goal Setting and Feedback: The Influence of Supervisory Style," Review of Public Personnal Adminstration, volume 16, 29-60.

Roberts, G.E., (1990). The Influence of Participation, Goal Setting, Feedback and Acceptance in Measures of Performance Appraisal

System Effectiveness. University of Pittsburgh, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Roch, S.G. and Shanock, L.R. (2006), "Organizational justice in an exchange framework: clarifying organizational justice distinctions",

Journal of Management, Vol. 32, pp. 299-322.

Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ruthankoon, R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2003). Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai construction industry. Engineering,

Construction and Architectural Management, 10 (5), 333-341.

Ryan, A. (1993). Justice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ryan. R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427.

Salgado, J. F. 1997. The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal o f Applied Psychology,

82: 30-43. Seldon, S. C., Ingraham, P.W., and Jacobson, W. (2001). Human Resource Practices in State Government: Findings from a National Survey.

Public Administration Review, 61, 598-614.

Salleh, M., Amin, A., Muda, S., &Abdul Halim, M. A. S. (2013). Fairness of Performance Appraisal and Organizational Commitment. Asian Social Science, 9 (2), 121-128.

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Murphy,+Kevin+R/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Garcia,+Magda/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Kerkar,+Shanta/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Martin,+Carmen/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Balzer,+William+K/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+Applied+Psychology/$N/41284/DocView/213937941/abstract/521FCBBFEF7F416CPQ/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+Applied+Psychology/$N/41284/DocView/213937941/abstract/521FCBBFEF7F416CPQ/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Palaiologos,+Anastasios/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Papazekos,+Panagiotis/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Panayotopoulou,+Leda/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+European+Industrial+Training/$N/37218/DocView/895350919/fulltext/3BF0957D6D9B48A2PQ/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+European+Industrial+Training/$N/37218/DocView/895350919/fulltext/3BF0957D6D9B48A2PQ/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Public+Personnel+Management/$N/35335/DocView/215943355/fulltext/BA18BEFA47C44FDPQ/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Public+Personnel+Management/$N/35335/DocView/215943355/fulltext/BA18BEFA47C44FDPQ/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/41284/Journal+of+Applied+Psychology/01982Y06Y01$23Jun+1982$3b++Vol.+67+$283$29/67/3?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/41284/Journal+of+Applied+Psychology/01982Y06Y01$23Jun+1982$3b++Vol.+67+$283$29/67/3?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/37218/Journal+of+European+Industrial+Training/02011Y10Y10$232011$3b++Vol.+35+$288$29/35/8?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/37218/Journal+of+European+Industrial+Training/02011Y10Y10$232011$3b++Vol.+35+$288$29/35/8?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/35335/Public+Personnel+Management/02003Y04Y01$23Spring+2003$3b++Vol.+32+$281$29/32/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/35335/Public+Personnel+Management/02003Y04Y01$23Spring+2003$3b++Vol.+32+$281$29/32/1?accountid=39490


2014, pp. 10-23


Sarita, K. (2012). A study on performance appraisal errors of telecom managers in Navi Mumbai region. SIES Journal ofManagement, 2012,

8 (2), 3-13. Scholtes, P. R. (1993). Total quality or performance appraisal: choose one. National Productivity Review, 12 (2), 349-63.

Schneider, Benjamin; Goldstein, Harold W; Smith, D Brent; The ASA framework: An update; Personnel Psychology 48.4 (Winter 1995):

747. Schultz H, Bargraim J, Potgieter T, Viedge C and Werner A, 2003; Organisational Behaviour: A Contemporary South African Perspective;

Pretoria: Van Schaik

Sergiovani, T. J., & Caver, F. D. (1980). The new school executive (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Shadel. W. G., & Cervone, D. (1993). The big five versus nobody? American Psychologist, 48, 1300-1302.

Shafritz, J. M., & Ott, J. S. (Eds.). (2001). Classics of organizational theory (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Inc.

Skarlicki, D.P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.

Smith, T. W, & Williams, P. G. (1992). Personality and health: Advantages and limitations of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality;

60, 395-423. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Spector, P. E. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: research and practice. New York: Wiley.

Staw, B. M. & Ross, J. 1985. Stability in the midst of change: a dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 70:

469-480.

Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. 1986. The dispositional approach to job attitudes: a lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 31: 56-77. Stone, E., &Porter, L. (1975). Job characteristics and job attitudes: A multivariate study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 57-64.

Strauss, G., (1974). Job satisfaction, motivation, and job redesign. In G. Strauss, R. Miles, C. Snow, &A.

Storey J, Sisson K, 1993.Managing Human Resources and Industrial Relations.Open University Press. Stewart V, 1990. The David Solution. Gower, Aldershot.

Strebler, M. T., Robinson, D., &Bevan, S. (2001). Performance review: balancing objective and content. The Institute of Employment

Studies, Brighton. Report No. 370. Stuhlman, D. (2006). Helping you turn data into knowledge: knowledge Management Terms. [Online] Available: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~ddstuhlman/definl.htm (November 4, 2010).

Stum, D. L. (2001). Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid. Strategy and Leadership, 29 (4), 4-9. Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D. (1993), "Workers' evaluations of the 'ends' and the 'means': an examination of four models of distributive

and procedural justice", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 55, pp. 23-40.

Tang, T.L. and Sarsfield-Baldwin, L.J. (1996), "Distributive and procedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment", SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 61, pp. 25-31

Tett RP, Jackson DN, Rothstein M, Reddon JR. (1999). Meta-analysis of bi-directional relations in personality-job performance research,

Human Performance, 12, 1-29.

Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, JN: Erlbaum.

Thurston, Paul W, Jr McNall, Laurel, Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices, Journal of Managerial Psychology 25.3

(2010): 201-228. Tivendell, J., &Bourbibbais, C. (2000). Job insecurity in a sample of Canadian civil servants as a function of personality and perceived job

characteristics. Psychological Reports, 87, 55-60.

Tupes, E. C. & Christal, R. E. 1961. Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings (Technical Report). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory.

Tziner, A., Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. N. (2001). Relationship between attitudes toward organizations and performance appraisal systems

and rating behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 226-239. Ubeda, C.L. (2003), Masters Thesis, Engineering School of São Carlos, University of São Paulo, São Carlos.

Umstot, D.O., Bell, C.H., &Mitchell T.R. (1976). Effects of job enrichment and task goals on satisfaction and productivity: Implications for

job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 379-394. Vroom, H. E. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Vroom, V. H. (1973). A new look at managerial decision-making. Organizational Dynamics, 2 (1), 66-80.

Walters M, 1995. The Performance Management Handbook.Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Wahba, M. A. & Bridwell, L. G. (1975). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 15 (2), 212-240.

Walsh, Marie Burns (2003) Perceived Fairness Of And Satisfaction With Employee Performance Appraisal, The School of Human Resource Education and Workforce Development, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

Warokka, Ari; Gallato, Cristina G; Moorthy, Thamendren A/L. Organizational Justice in Performance Appraisal System and Work

Performance: Evidence from an Emerging Market, Journal of Human Resources Management Research 2012 (2012): 1-18. Weiss, H.M., &Adler, J. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw &L.L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in Organizational

Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wexley, K, N. & Klimoski, R. Performance appraisal: An update. In G. R. Ferris and K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Performance evaluation, goal setting, and feedback. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1990, pp. 1-45.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological

Review, 66, 297-333. Williams, Kevin J; DeNisi, Angelo S; Blencoe, Allyn G; Cafferty, Thomas P; The Role of Appraisal Purpose: Effects of Purpose on

Information Acquisition and Utilization; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35.3 (Jun 1985): 314.

Williams, L., & Hazar, J. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A re-analysis using latent variable structural equation models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 219-231.

Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1997). Assessment of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment,

68, 228-250.

Winston, R. B., & Creamer D. G. (1997). Improving staffing practices in student affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wooldridge, E. (1995). Time to stand Maslow’s hierarchy on its head? People Management, 1 (25), 17.

Young, I. P., & Davis, B. (1983). The applicability of Herzberg’s dual factor theory(ies) for public school superintendents. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16 (4), 59-66.

Zedeck, S. and Cascio, W.F. (1982), "Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of the appraisal", Journal

of Applied Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 752-8.

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Schneider,+Benjamin/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Goldstein,+Harold+W/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Smith,+D+Brent/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Personnel+Psychology/$N/36693/DocView/220136818/fulltextwithgraphics/92ED7580A98F4735PQ/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Personnel+Psychology/$N/36693/DocView/220136818/fulltextwithgraphics/92ED7580A98F4735PQ/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Thurston,+Paul+W,+Jr/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/McNall,+Laurel/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+Managerial+Psychology/$N/3488/DocView/215870618/fulltext/7F0432880599428FPQ/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+Managerial+Psychology/$N/3488/DocView/215870618/fulltext/7F0432880599428FPQ/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Warokka,+Ari/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Gallato,+Cristina+G/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Moorthy,+Thamendren+A$2fL/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+Human+Resources+Management+Research/$N/1986346/DocView/1446292526/fulltext/C73DAFA655994883PQ/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Journal+of+Human+Resources+Management+Research/$N/1986346/DocView/1446292526/fulltext/C73DAFA655994883PQ/2?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Williams,+Kevin+J/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/DeNisi,+Angelo+S/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Blencoe,+Allyn+G/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Cafferty,+Thomas+P/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Organizational+Behavior+and+Human+Decision+Processes/$N/36949/DocView/223182923/abstract/763DA718EC4E4986PQ/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Organizational+Behavior+and+Human+Decision+Processes/$N/36949/DocView/223182923/abstract/763DA718EC4E4986PQ/1?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/36693/Personnel+Psychology/01995Y12Y01$23Winter+1995$3b++Vol.+48+$284$29/48/4?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/36693/Personnel+Psychology/01995Y12Y01$23Winter+1995$3b++Vol.+48+$284$29/48/4?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/3488/Journal+of+Managerial+Psychology/02010Y04Y01$232010$3b++Vol.+25+$283$29/25/3?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/3488/Journal+of+Managerial+Psychology/02010Y04Y01$232010$3b++Vol.+25+$283$29/25/3?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/1986346/Journal+of+Human+Resources+Management+Research/02012Y01Y01$232012$3b++Vol.+2012/2012/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/1986346/Journal+of+Human+Resources+Management+Research/02012Y01Y01$232012$3b++Vol.+2012/2012/$N?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/36949/Organizational+Behavior+and+Human+Decision+Processes/01985Y06Y01$23Jun+1985$3b++Vol.+35+$283$29/35/3?accountid=39490

http://search.proquest.com/business/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/36949/Organizational+Behavior+and+Human+Decision+Processes/01985Y06Y01$23Jun+1985$3b++Vol.+35+$283$29/35/3?accountid=39490

ISSN (Print): 2328-3734, ISSN (Online): 2328-3696, ISSN...

Documents

Transcript of ISSN (Print): 2328-3734, ISSN (Online): 2328-3696, ISSN...