Wali Rahman, Associate Professor,
Sarhad University of Science & IT, Peshawar. Email: wali.ba@suit.edu.pk; mayarwali@gmail.com
Haji
Rahman, Assistant Professor, Preston University, Islamabad. Email: haji616@yahoo.com
Jawad
Hussain, Assistant Professor, University of Malakand. Email: jawadhussain79@gmail.com
Fayaz Ali Shah, Assistant Professor, Islamia College Peshawar. Email: akhoon47@yahoo.com
Abstract. The current study is a prepositional study which
looks employee behaviours and their impact on human resource intervention
effectiveness. It is a literature based study. Extant literature has been
explored and relationships have been presented in a new way. The study is the
first one in conceptually presenting new insights. The study is believed to
open a fresh research discussion. It has theoretical implications. The study
recommends empirical testing of the proposition presented in this study. The
study has all the limitations of a social science research.
Key words: Performance
appraisal, commitment, trust, and job satisfaction
To stay alive and maintain a competitive
edge in the current business environment, efficiency and effectiveness have
remained the only options with organizations. And both of these options are
characterized by the quality of employees. Notwithstanding, the only formal way
for measuring this quality is performance appraisal. Boswell and Boudreau (2002) consider performance appraisal as one of the most
important human resource practices. A plethora of studies (Lee,
2000), Lee and Bruvold (2003), Jawahar (2005), Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) is available that has looked into a number of factors
that affect the level of satisfaction over the effectiveness of performance
appraisal system in vogue. It has also been vastly studied that fair
performance appraisals have positive effects on the job attitudes and
behaviors. And that is why sufficient attention has been given to this human
resource activity (Fletcher,
2002). It can be fairly said that the way it is handled can
either lead to demoralization and dissatisfaction leading to organizational
problems, or to high employee morale and productivity resulting in
organizational viability (Rahman, 2012).
“Employee’s attitude and behaviour in the
workplace is of prime importance in the success of any organization” (Rahman,
2012, p. 1). And this have widely been acknowledged in the extant literature (Harley,
2002; Tessema
& Soeters, 2006;
Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003). Understanding the nature of performance appraisal and its role in
organizational setup is of prime importance thereof. Still more, it would
continue to be a central theme in the research literature. Therefore, those organizations that look for greater share in
the market through their human resources are required to manage the behaviour
and results of all employees. At the same time it is the most difficult
challenge for managers to make distinctions between good, normal and weak
performers (Noe, Hollenbeck,
Gerhart, & Wright, 2005). In simple words,
performance management is a very critical but a troublesome task. Muczyk
and Gable (1987) believe that the way this activity is managed
determines the success/ failure of an organization. Therefore, “it is essential
for an organization to have an effective performance appraisal system, so that
employees’ performance could be assessed accurately, moreover, such a system
could adequately support to various human resource decisions afterwards” (Ikramullah,
Shah, Hassan, Zaman, & Shah, 2011, p. 37).
Research has generally concentrated by
studying the impact of HR interventions on employees’ behaviour. There is a
need of looking at human behaviour and its impact of HR interventions in
organizations.
Justification
and Significance
A large number
of researchers Edgar and Geare (2005), Georgellis and Lange (2007), and Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) have referred
to the relationship between performance appraisal and employee’s job behaviour.
That is why it is highly critical for the success of any organization as
it has numerous advantages at Individual
level (like acknowledging of the efforts that individual employee has
put in and identifying weak areas where training is needed), Team level (like linking of team
efforts with team’s objectives and motivation), and at Organizational level (like employee’ development, attaining
key objectives, and the possible utilization of human resources). However, It
can be said that research on organizational commitment within educational
settings is rare (Chughtai
& Zafar, 2006). The amount of research to test the human
resource-performance association with employee behaviour in developing
countries like Pakistan (Shahzad,
Bashir, & Ramay, 2008) is very scarce.
Patten (1977) traced its existence to the third century A.D.
According to him there are evidences of criticism of unfair assessment of a
rater hired by the Wei dynasty. However, Prowse and Prowse, (2009) observed that official recording
of employees’ performance were found in Robert Owens’ factory in New Lanark as
early as 1800s. However, majority of the writers on the subject traces its
origins to the start of the 20th century and link it to Taylor's pioneering
Time and Motion studies. While as a discrete and official management system
with some rudimentary assessment techniques happen to be found at the close of
World War I. However, Mazhar-ul-Haq (1977) and Khan (2007) trace the foundation of formal
performance appraisal of the state functionaries to Hazrat Umar Farooq, the
Second Caliph of Islam (634- 644 AD/13-23 AH). Anyway, it can be said with
certainty that it is a very ancient, inevitable and a universal art. Khan (2007) contends that the history of
performance appraisal starts with the dawn of human civilization and to
evolution of human history itself. In a nutshell, “performance appraisal has
been considered to be a key element in organizational success for the better
part of the twentieth century. It has been an established practice to use
performance appraisal tools to assess the individual performance of employees
and to utilize these findings to improve performance” (Rasch, 2004, p. 410).
Performance Appraisal and Employee Dissatisfaction
While
accepting stated purposes of the performance appraisal system, Soltani et al. (2005) complains that very limited
number of studies have reported positive effects of the system. Beardwell and
Holden (1997) express their opinion by saying
that assessments are received with suspicion, distrust, and fear. They cause a
large number of shocking effects (Faizal, 2005). Similarly, Schellhardt (1996) contends that major surveys
report the failure of the assessment process. The Society of Human Resource
Management also reported that above 90% of the appraisal systems are
unsuccessful. Soltani et al. (2005) reported a 1993 survey by
Development Dimensions Incorporated. According to that survey majority of the
employers articulated their ‘overwhelming’ discomfiture with the assessment
systems.
So much so
has been said about the central role of performance appraisal, discontent with
it still exists. Prowse and Prowse, (2009) record that 90 percent of
organizations in USA and UK use appraisals as tools to affect employee
behaviour. It is very strange to observe an increase from 69% to 87% (during
1998-2004) of organizations using formal performance management systems (Armstrong & Baron, 2005). However, they find minimum
evidence of the usefulness of the assessments.
To put it
simply, there is a general lack of penchant toward performance appraisals from
the ratee and rater in somewhat equal degrees. But ironically, at the same
time, everyone would like to know where he/she stands. And when some method
(performance appraisal), to get the result, is applied, it results in a sour
aftertaste if not a bad ending. Are we expecting too much—or the wrong
thing—from performance evaluations? The answer may be that there is something
wrong with the performance evaluation process, for which the researchers are
busy to remove or improve. But there hardly seems a panacea which could satisfy
everybody.
It will be
suffice to conclude the discussion with two broad conclusions: First, it is an
essential activity and can be found almost everywhere; second, it is simply not
possible to get assessment which is free of human or system errors.
Appraisal
criteria are those features of performance that an employee has the power to
control and, at the same time, organization considers them imperative to job
accomplishment and, therefore, exploit them to evaluate employee performance (Scarpello,
Ledvinka, & Bergmann, 1995). Measuring human performance is not an easy task. According to Prowse
and Prowse (2009) developing assessment measures has always been a
dilemma with organizations. There are a number of issues like consensus or
uniformity in pen pointing the exact problem area, absence of openness, transparency, mutual influence and objective standards which
contribute to skepticism of performance appraisal and resistance to its
implementation (Benson, Debroux, Yuasa, & Zhu,
2000), managers’ manipulation,
measurement that is based on personal attributes and not on work behaviors or
outcomes (Campbell,
1990), the issue of ethics or politics in performance (Tziner,
Latham, Price, & Haccoun, 1996), and issue of deliberate and conscious
dishonesty in performance evaluation
(Campbell
& Lee, 1988).
Job satisfaction, in the current context,
by definition is a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
one’s job or an effective reaction or attitude to one's job. It is the level of contentment of an individual with
his/her performance of the job. It is an evaluative statement of how one feels about
his/her job (Robbins,
2002). It is affected by the management style and culture,
employee involvement, empowerment and other organizational interventions. It is
a complex function of a number of
variables. It is generally believed that performance appraisal as an HR
activity has profound effect on employee satisfaction - for better as well as
for worse. It is an organizational way of recognizing employees’ contribution
to organization. However, if analyzed from the other side a satisfied employee
will have minimum issues with the management and good organizational relation
will save him organizational politics in the appraisal system. Resultantly,
performance appraisal will be effective. On the basis of this contention the
researchers postulate:
Proposition 1: The greater
the element of job satisfaction an employee enjoys, the more effective
performance appraisal it will be.
Organizational commitment, by definition,
is a bond between an individual and the organization. Employee commitment is
important because high levels of commitment lead to several favorable
organizational outcomes (Chughtai
& Zafar, 2006). In a general sense, it is an employee’s engagement
which restricts freedom of action. It is the strength of an employee’s
involvement in and identification with the organization (Robbins,
2002). According to Allen and Meyer (1990) it is a psychological state that binds an individual
to the organization (i.e., makes turnover less likely). Similarly, for Meyer
and Allen (1997) a committed employee is likely not to part ways with
the organization through thick and thin. Such an employee works with sincerity
and devotion and exploits all his/her potentials to the maximum level, takes
care of organization’s assets and, above all, shares company’s goals. This will
also include an employees’ attachment with the performance appraisal system.
For Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) it is a stabilizing or obliging force that gives
direction to behavior (e.g. restricts freedom, binds the person to a course of
action.
Majority of the literature on
organizational commitment revolve around the framework developed by Meyer and
Allen (1991) to measure three different types of organizational
commitment: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative
commitment
Irrespective of the type, commitment is a
psychosomatic state that is associated with an employee's attachment with the
organization that he/she works for. This attachment affects his/her decision
whether to remain within the organization or should part ways with it. Mowday
and Richard (1979) found organizational commitment is dependent on three
major factors. They are: a).Personal
factors, b). Organizational factors, and
c). Non-organizational factors. All
these aspects studied collectively will affect employees’ behaviour regarding
any human interventions that includes performance appraisal. On the basis of
the above discussion it is postulated that:
Proposition 2: The greater the
element of commitment that an employee has, the more effective performance
appraisal will be.
Trust has been defined by a number of
researchers. It is a way of controlling employee’s work behaviour and employee’s
positive psychological reaction to the controlling system which ensures and
sustains manageable relations and keeps employees happy. It is a readiness of
an employee to be susceptible to the actions of the organization with the hope
that the latter will perform an action important to the former, irrespective of the potential of checking or
controlling the other party (Mayer,
Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). According to Misztal (1996) it as an individual property or social system with
disproportionate attention to behaviour based on actions at the individual
level. Trust is a “reliance upon the behavior of a person in order to achieve a
desired but uncertain objective in a risky situation” (Giffin,
1967, p. 105). In simple words it involves risk taking. Trust is
such a relationship wherein both the parties believe that their actions have
corresponding effects on the other.
Organizations can accomplish almost
anything with it. But without it, every day is a struggle filled with friction
and uncertainty. It has been observed that organizations give nodding
acknowledgment to the importance of trust, but they are generally misguided in
their understanding in depth. It is very important and plays an important role
in all human resource processes especially in the process of performance
appraisal (Annamalai,
Abdullah, & Alazidiyeen, 2010).
In organizational management perspective
researchers (Brockner,
Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997) believe that it influences a number of subordinate’s work attitudes
and behavior. According to Laka-Mathebula (2004) three factors are essential for effective trust. They
are: a) ability—the competence to supply what the trustor expects; b)
integrity—that the partner is not a cheater; and c) benevolence—that trustee
has an altruistic intention. When trust levels are high, employees have been
found supportive, committed to management and to the organizations that the
management represent (Chughtai
& Zafar, 2006). Therefore, employees enjoying high levels of trust
have been found comfortable and hardly raise reservations on the decisions
taken by the management because they believe that management do whatever is
best in their interest as well as in the interest of the organization. In other
words, one can easily conclude that implementation of any HR intervention will
neither be doubted nor blocked. To sum it up, trust is instrumental in
developing an affirmative environment (Rahman & Khan, 2016). From this the
researchers conclude:
Proposition 3: The
greater the element of trust in performance appraisal, the more effective it
will be.
To conclude,
organizations, in common, want to be successful. But their success is dependent
upon the satisfaction of their respective customers. These customers’
satisfaction is mostly associated with employees of the organizations. Good
service delivery on the part of the employees results from their sense of trust
and goodwill toward the organization. Therefore, taking care of employees’
well-being should be the top strategic priority for developing their trust in
organization. However, it is not only perks, privileges, and mere pats on the back
to get employees tuned in and turned on. It takes a comprehensive approach on
how to maintain positive adult-to-adult association within the workplace.
The present study presented a few
proposition to understand the interplay of the behavioural issues and
organizational interventions. The study has strong theoretical implications.
First, the study looks at new concepts from a new perspective. Thus, studying
the relationships between trust, commitment, and job satisfaction as
antecedents of performance appraisal effectiveness will open a new discussion.
The current study has been undertaken to
provide a new conceptual foundation that needs to be empirically tested in
future. Generally, employees’ behavioral outcomes are attributed to effective
performance management system. We believe, it could be the other way round. In
other words, if employees are committed, trust management and are satisfied,
the result will be effective performance appraisal. We have these propositions
and recommend that it need to be empirically tested.
Allen,
N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Annamalai, T., Abdullah, A. G. K., & Alazidiyeen,
N. J. (2010). The mediating effects of perceived organizational support on the
relationships between organizational justice, trust and performance appraisal
in Malaysian secondary schools. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 623-632.
Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (2005). Managing Performance: Performance Management
in Action: CIPD Publishing.
Beardwell, I., & Holden, L. (1997). Human Resource Management: A Contemporary
Perspective: Pitman, London.
Benson, J., Debroux, P., Yuasa, M., & Zhu, Y.
(2000). Flexibility and labour management: Chinese manufacturing enterprises in
the 1990s. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 11(2), 183-196.
Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2002).
Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3),
391-412.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T.,
& Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome
favorability. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42(3), 558-583.
Campbell, D. J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal
in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 302-314.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance
prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.
Dunnette, & Hough, L.M. (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 39-73): Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Chughtai, A. A., & Zafar, S. (2006). Antecedents
and consequences of organizational commitment among Pakistani university
teachers. Applied HRM Research, 11(1),
39-64.
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and
employee attitudes: different measures–different results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534-549.
Faizal, M. (2005). Institutionalization
of Performance Appraisal System: A Case Study of the Maldivian Public Service.
(MS Thesis), University of Bergen, Norway.
Fletcher, C. (2002). Appraisal: an individual
psychological perspective. Psychological
Management of Individual Performance, 113-135.
Georgellis, Y., & Lange, T. (2007). Participation
in continuous, on-the-job training and the impact on job satisfaction:
longitudinal evidence from the German labour market. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(6),
969-985.
Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of
source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication
process. Psychological Bulletin, 68(2),
104-120.
Harley, B. (2002). Employee responses to high
performance work system practices: An analysis of the AWIRS95 data. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3),
418-434.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L.
(2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,
employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2),
268-279.
Ikramullah, M., Shah, B., Hassan, F. S., Zaman, T.,
& Shah, I. A. (2011). Peformance appraisal fairness perception in
supervisory and non-supervisory employees: A case of civil servants in district
Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan. Business and
Management Review, 1(7), 37-45.
Jawahar, I. (2005). Rater behaviors, ratee’s reactions and performance. Paper presented
at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management.
Khan, A. (2007). Performance appraisal’s relation with
productivity and job satisfaction. Journal
of Managerial Sciences, 1(2), 99-114.
Laka-Mathebula, M. R. (2004). Modelling the Relationship Between Organizational Commitment,
Leadership Style, Human Resources Management Practices and Organizational
Trust. (Doctor of Philosophy PhD Thesis), University of Pretoria,
Pretoria.
Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating
value for employees: Investment in employee development. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6),
981-1000.
Lee, H. R. (2000). An
Empirical Study of Organizational Justice as a Mediator of the Relationships
Among Leader-Member Exchange and Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment,
and Turnover Intentions in the Lodging Industry. (Doctor of Philosophy PhD
Thesis), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D.
(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mazhar-ul-Haq. (1977). A Short History of Islam: From the Rise of Islam to the Fall of
Baghdad, 571 AD to 1258 AD. Lahore: Bookland.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory,
Research, and Application: Sage publications, inc.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment
in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human
Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299-326.
Misztal, B. A. (1996). Trust in Modem Societies: Polity Press, Cambridge MA.
Mowday, R. T., & Richard, M. (1979). Steers, and
Lyman W. Porter (1979),“The Measurement of Organizational Commitment,”. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2),
224–247.
Muczyk, J. P., & Gable, M. (1987). Managing sales
performance through a comprehensive performance appraisal system. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 7(1), 41-52.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., &
Wright, P. M. (2005). Human Resource
Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage (5th ed.): New York: McGraw-Hill.
Patten, T. H. (1977). Pay: Employee Compensation and Incentive Plans: Free Press.
Prowse, P., & Prowse, J. (2009). The dilemma of
performance appraisal. Measuring Business
Excellence, 13(4), 69-77.
Rahman, H., & Khan, G. A. (2016). Examining the interceding
role of leader-member xchange (LMX) in the relationship between trust and
employee engagement. Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences 2(1),
66-73.
Robbins, S. P. (2002). Organizational Behavior (10th edn ed.): Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Scarpello, V. G., Ledvinka, J., & Bergmann, T. J.
(1995). Human Resource Management:
Environments and Functions: South-Western College Pub., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Schellhardt, T. D. (1996). Annual agony: It’s time to
evaluate your work, and all involved are groaning. The Wall Street Journal, A1.
Shahzad, K., Bashir, S., & Ramay, M. I. (2008).
Impact of HR practices on perceived performance of university teachers in
Pakistan. International Review of
Business Research Papers, 4(2), 302-315.
Tessema, M. T., & Soeters, J. L. (2006).
Challenges and prospects of HRM in developing countries: testing the
HRM–performance link in the Eritrean civil service. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1),
86-105.
Tziner, A., Latham, G. P., Price, B. S., &
Haccoun, R. (1996). Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring
perceived political considerations in performance appraisal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17,
179-190.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M.
(2003). The impact of HR practices on the performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3),
21-36.