perceived performance appraisal purposefulness failure and
Post on 11-Dec-2021
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
i
Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-
Role Performance and Retaliation: Testing a Moderated Mediated
Model in Public Sector of Pakistan
Researcher: Supervisor:
Sumaira Aslam Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan
REG NO. 46-FMS/PHDMGT/F12 Professor, FMS, IIUI
Co-Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Najeebullah
Chairperson, Department of Public
Administration, Fatima Jinnah Women
University, Rawalpindi.
Faculty of Management Sciences
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD
ii
Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-
Role Performance and Retaliation: Testing a Moderated Mediated
Model in Public Sector of Pakistan
Sumaira Aslam
REG NO. 46-FMS/PHDMGT/F12
Submitted to fulfil the partial requirements for the
Doctoral degree with Management specialization
at the faculty of Management Sciences,
International Islamic University,
Islamabad.
Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan April, 2019
Dr. Najeebullah
iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my parents, beloved son, sweet sister and my
supervisor whose support has enabled me
to complete this research study successfully.
v
COPYRIGHTS
Copyright © 2019 by IIUI Student
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form requires the prior
written permission of Ms. Sumaira Aslam or designated representative.
vi
DECLARATION
DATE: _April, 2019
I, Sumaira Aslam Daughter/Son of Muhammad Aslam certify that the
thesis entitled, “Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-Role
Performance and Retaliation: Testing a Moderated Mediated Model in Public Sector of
Pakistan”. Being handed over to the competent authority has not already been submitted
or published and shall not in future be submitted by me for obtaining any degree from
another university or institution.
I also confirm that this thesis is entirely my own work. It has not, in whole or in part,
been plagiarized from any published or unpublished source. Wherever the material has
been used from other sources, the same has been properly acknowledged.
It is also certified that I have followed all IIU requirements regarding writing, Compiling,
Typing, formatting and binding of this thesis.
Signature of Student: _______________________
Registration Number: 46-FMS/PHDMGT/F12
Name of Supervisor: Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan
1
APPRECIATION AND GRATITUDE
No words of gratitude will ever be sufficient for the Allah Almighty who made me
capable of learning, blessed me with the knowledge & intellect and facilitated me with
the finest of the mentors all through my academic years.
Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan, Professor and Vice President Academics, IIU Islamabad,
and Dr. Najeebullah, Chairman, Department of Public Administration, Gomel University,
who made me, realize that no matter how high you think of your work, there is always a
room for improvement. I present my deep gratitude to him, for being the most marvelous
and enduring supervisor.
I also appreciate Dr. Tasneem Fatima, Coordinator FMS, for her consistent
encouragement and continuous support especially in increasing my knowledge and other
faculty members especially Dr. Saima Naseer and Dr. Fouzia for supporting me.
Finally, to my parents, most wonderful parents of the world who grew me up to never
frantically fall upon a yearning other than knowledge and my truly adorable son, and my
sister for high moral support.
Ms. Sumaira Aslam
2
(Acceptance by the Viva Voice Committee)
Title of Thesis: “Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-Role
Performance and Retaliation: Testing a Moderated Mediated Model in Public Sector of
Pakistan”
.
Name of Student: Sumaira Aslam
Registration No:46-FMS/PhD-Mgt./F12
Accepted by the Faculty of Management Sciences INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC
UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate
of Philosophy Degree in Management Sciences with specialization in Human Resource
Management.
Viva Voce Committee
Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan
(Supervisor)
Dr. Najeebullah
(Co-Supervisor)
3
_______________________
(External Examiner)
________________________
(Internal Examiner)
________________________
(Chairman HS & R)
________________________
(Dean)
Date:___________________
4
FORWARDING SHEET
The thesis entitled “Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-Role
Performance and Retaliation: Testing a Moderated Mediated Model in Public Sector of
Pakistan” submitted by Sumaira Aslam as partial fulfillment of PhD degree
in Management Sciences with specialization in Management, has completed under
my guidance and supervision. The changes advised by the external and the internal
examiners hava also been incorporated. I am satisfied with the quality of student’s
research work and allow her to submit this thesis for further process as per IIU rules &
regulations.
Date:_______________________ Signature:___________________
Name : ____________________
5
Abstract:
The study investigates the relationship among perceived failure of the performance
appraisal purposefulness, the injustice perceptions, in-role performance and retaliation in
Public sector of Pakistan. The overall injustice perception serves as mediator among the
performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation.
Whereas the study perceived organizational support tests as moderator between
performance appraisal purposefulness failure and Overall injustice perception. The study
gathered data using a self-administered questionnaire from 400 civil servants across 12
occupational groups appointed in major cities of Pakistan, from which 380 responses
seems to be valid with a 95% response rate. The study uses a time-lag design to collect
data at two different times (time 1 and time 2). The responses on in-role performance and
retaliation was reported by peers. Amos 20 and Process 3.0 were used for data analysis.
The results confirm a positive relationship between performance appraisal purposefulness
failure with retaliation but for in-role performance, a negative relationship was not found.
However overall injustice perception found to be positively related with in-role
performance and retaliation level. The results also show that overall injustice perception
partially mediates the relationship between the failure of performance appraisal
purposefulness and the in-role performance, but no mediation was found among
retaliation. The study also confirms the moderation of Perceived organizational support.
The research results have practical and practical significance for civil servants and public
6
organizations in the new geographical environment. This study is a rare attempt to test all
aspects of performance appraisal purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception
on the in-performance and retaliation.
Key words: Performance appraisal purposefulness failure, Injustice Perception, In-role
performance, Retaliation and Perceived organizational support.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Chapter one: Introduction ................................................................................. - 18 -
Background of Study:................................................................................................ - 18 -
Gap Analysis: ............................................................................................................ - 26 -
Problem Statement: ................................................................................................... - 30 -
Research Questions: .................................................................................................. - 32 -
Research objectives: .................................................................................................. - 33 -
Significance of study: ................................................................................................ - 33 -
1.1.1 Theoretical significance: ......................................................................... - 33 -
1.1.2 Managerial Justification: ......................................................................... - 35 -
1.1.3 Contextual Justification: ......................................................................... - 36 -
Definition OF important Terms................................................................................. - 38 -
2. Chapter Two: Review of Literature....................................................................... 40
Relevant theory: ............................................................................................................ 40
2.1.1 Organizational Justice Theory: ................................................................... 40
8
2.1.2 Why justice is Important? ........................................................................... 42
2.1.3 Organizational Justice Verses Injustice ...................................................... 46
2.1.4 Overall injustice: ......................................................................................... 47
Applying organizational Justice Theory on Performance appraisal and its
purposefulness: .............................................................................................................. 52
2.1.5 Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and Organizational injustice
60
2.1.6 Facets of Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure .......................... 66
2.1.7 Outcomes of Organizational Justice / Injustice: ......................................... 71
Hypothesis Development .............................................................................................. 74
2.1.8 Administrative purposefulness failure and In-role Performance and
Retaliation:................................................................................................................. 74
2.1.9 Developmental Purposefulness failure and In-role performance and
Retaliation:................................................................................................................. 78
2.1.10 Strategic Purposes Failure and In-role Performance and Retaliation ......... 81
2.1.11 Role Definition Purposefulness failure and In-role performance and
Retaliation:................................................................................................................. 84
9
2.1.12 Administrative purposes failure and Injustice Perception: ......................... 86
2.1.13 Developmental purposes Failure and Injustice Perception: ........................ 88
2.1.14 Strategic Purposes Failure and Injustice Perception: .................................. 91
2.1.15 Role Definition Purposes Failure and Injustice Perception: ....................... 93
2.1.16 Injustice perception and in-role Performance and Retaliation .................... 96
2.1.17 Overall injustice perception as a mediator: ................................................. 97
2.1.18 Perceived organizational support as moderator: ....................................... 102
Theoretical Frame work: ............................................................................................. 107
3. Chapter three: Research Methodology................................................................ 108
Research Design: ......................................................................................................... 110
Population of Study: .................................................................................................... 111
Sample Size determination: ......................................................................................... 114
Sampling and Sampling Procedure: ............................................................................ 114
Instruments: ................................................................................................................. 116
10
3.1.1 Measurement of Perceived Performance appraisal purposefulness failure:
116
3.1.2 Perceived Administrative Purposefulness failure: .................................... 117
3.1.3 Perceived Developmental Purposefulness failure: .................................... 118
3.1.4 Perceived Role Definition Purposefulness failure: ................................... 118
3.1.5 Perceived Strategic Purposefulness failure: .............................................. 119
3.1.6 Overall Injustice perception of Performance appraisal: ............................ 119
3.1.7 In-role Performance: ................................................................................. 120
3.1.8 Retaliation: ................................................................................................ 120
3.1.9 Perceived Organizational Support (POS): ................................................ 121
Data Collection Techniques: ....................................................................................... 121
Reliability analysis: ..................................................................................................... 123
Data Analysis techniques: ........................................................................................... 124
4. Chapter Four: Data presentation and Analysis ............................................... 126
Demographic profile of the respondents: .................................................................... 126
11
Descriptive statistics for research variables ................................................................ 129
Correlation Analysis:................................................................................................... 130
Hypotheses testing: ..................................................................................................... 133
4.1.1 Pre SEM assumption ................................................................................. 133
4.1.2 Tests of Measurement Models: ................................................................. 134
4.1.3 Structural Model Analysis: ....................................................................... 144
Hypotheses Results: .................................................................................................... 177
5. Discussion and Analysis ........................................................................................ 181
5.1 Summary of finding: ............................................................................................. 181
5.1.1 Summary of Results of Reliability and Validity ....................................... 183
5.1.2 Hypothesis Testing: .................................................................................. 183
5.2 Study contribution to the current state of knowledge: .......................................... 192
5.3 Practical Implications ............................................................................................ 194
5.4 Study Limitations: ................................................................................................. 195
5.5 Future Research Implications ................................................................................ 196
12
5.6 Conclusion:............................................................................................................ 197
6. Reference ................................................................................................................ 198
7. Appendices ............................................................................................................. 212
Appendix-A: Tables .................................................................................................... 212
Appendix-B: Figures ................................................................................................... 219
APPENDIX-C: Questionnaire ................................................................................. 225
13
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Theoretical framework 108
FIGURE 2: Threshold values for model fit indices 126
FIGURE 3: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 140
FIGURE 4: Path model showing the relationship between administrative purposefulness
failure and in-role performance and retaliation 147
FIGURE 5: Path model showing the relationship between developmental purposefulness
failure and in-role performance and retaliation 149
FIGURE 6: Path model showing the relationship between strategic purposefulness
failure and in-role performance and retaliation 151
FIGURE 7: Path model showing the relationship between role definition purposefulness
failure and in-role performance and retaliation. 154
FIGURE 8: Path model showing the performance appraisal purposefulness failure as
second order construct and its relationship with in-role performance and retaliation.
156
FIGURE 9: Path diagram showing the relationship between perceived administrative
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception 159
FIGURE 10: path diagram showing the relationship between perceived developmental
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception 160
FIGURE 11: Path diagram showing the relationship between perceived strategic
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception 161
FIGURE 12: Path diagram showing the relationship between perceived role definition
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception 162
14
FIGURE 13: Path diagram showing the relationship between perceived role definition
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception 163
FIGURE 14: Path diagram showing the relationship between overall injustice perception
and in-role performance and retaliation 165
FIGURE 15: Path diagram showing mediation of overall injustice perception on the
relation between administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition
purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation 169
FIGURE 16: Moderated effects of perceived organizational support between the
relationship of perceived administrative purposefulness failure and overall injustice
percption 219
FIGURE 17: Moderated effects of perceived organizational support between the
relationship of perceived istrative developmental purposefulness failure and overall
injustice percption 220
FIGURE 18: Moderated effects of perceived organizational support between the
relationship of perceived strategic purposefulness failure and overall injustice
percption 221
FIGURE 19: Moderated effects of perceived organizational support between the
relationship of perceived role definition purposefulness failure and overall injustice
percption 222
FIGURE 20: Plots showing homoscedasticity of data for retaliation 222
FIGURE 21: Plots showing homoscedasticity of data for in-role performance 224
15
List of Tables:
TABLE-1: Year wise allocation of civil servants to different occupational group /
services, 2007-2013 113
TABLE 2: Cronbach’s alpha (α) 124
TABLE 3: Gender detail of respondents 127
TABLE 4: Age detail of respondents 127
TABLE 5: Table representing the proportionate of occupational groups 128
TABLE 6: Qualification details of respondents 128
TABLE 7: Total experience and current job experience 129
TABLE 8: Results for descriptive statistics and correlation matrix 132
TABLE 9: Reliability and validity measures for sub-sample. 137
TABLE 10: Results of CFA 139
TABLE 11: Factor loading during CFA 140
TABLE 12: Results showing the relationship between administrative purposefulness
failure and in-role performance and retaliation 146
TABLE 13: Results showing the relationship between developmental purposefulness
failure and in-role performance and retaliation 148
TABLE 14: Results showing the relationship between strategic purposefulness failure
and in-role performance and retaliation 150
TABLE 15: Results showing the relationship between role definition purposefulness
failure and in-role performance and retaliation 152
16
TABLE 16: Results showing the relationship between all facets of performance appraisal
purposefulness failure as a second order construct and in-role performance and
retaliation 154
TABLE 17: Relationship between ivs and mediator (OIP) 158
TABLE 18: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived
administrative purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 159
TABLE 19: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived
developmental purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 160
TABLE 20: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived strategic
purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 161
TABLE 21: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived role
definition purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 162
TABLE 22: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived role
definition purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 163
TABLE 23: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for overall injustice
perception and in-role performance and retaliation 164
TABLE 24: Summary of regression results for direct hypothesis 166
TABLE 25: Summary of model fit for mediation analysis 168
TABLE 26: Regression weights: structural model for testing mediation 171
TABLE 27: Bootstrapping results - mediation analysis of the effect of developmental
purposefulness failure on in-role performance and retaliation through overall
injustice perception 172
17
TABLE 28: Results for main effects and moderated regression analysis for perceived
overall injustice perception 212
TABLE 29: Results for main effects and moderated regression analysis for perceived
overall injustice perception 213
TABLE 30: Results for main effects and moderated regression analysis for perceived
overall injustice perception 214
TABLE 31: Results for main effects and moderated regression analysis for perceived
overall injustice perception 215
TABLE 32: Assessment of normality 216
- 18 -
1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF STUDY:
Performance appraisal purposefulness failure occurs when an organization fails to
achieve the innate purposefulness of performance appraisal. Performance appraisals are
normally executed to achieve multiple purposes in organizations, containing
“administrative (i.e. pay rise, promotion), developmental, feedback and personnel
research (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998; Abu-Doleh & Weir, 2007), improve
performance of employees and work efficiency (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991, 2003),
employee development to improve the skills (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007;
Bosswell & Boudreau, 2002). Boswell and colleague in (2000) believe that PA is aimed
for administrative decision-making (salary, termination / retention, promotion, layoffs)
and development decision, such as (training the employees, providing performance
feedback on regular basis, employee transfer, influential employee strengths and
weaknesses).
In a recent research, (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; Iqbal., 2012) explained the
importance of distinguishing the various purposes of performance appraisal due to having
greater implications for human resource development literature, helpful for mangers to
take adequate decision about employee development, rewards and training and gives
clarity to link the appraisal decisions with employee administrative and developmental
purposes. There are several other reasons identified by (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams,
- 19 -
1989) to distinguish different purposes of performance appraisal like first, the appraisal
purposes influence both processes and outcomes of performance appraisal so the
performance ratings received in lieu of various purposes might be different from that
meant for a particular purpose. Second, it is evident that accuracy in differentiating
individuals is independent of accuracy at large in differentiating a person's strong point
from weaknesses third, rater interviews suggest that in presence of multiple purposes,
they judge the individual for every single purpose which helps the rater to fill out the
formal performance appraisal forms suggesting the utmost significant purpose over all
other.
Prior studies theorizes and distinguishes several purposes of performance appraisal e.g.
between-individuals, within-individual, systems maintenance, and documentation
(Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989); developmental and evaluation purposes
(McCarthy, & Garavan, 2001); documentation, administration, subordinate expression, and
development purposes (Milliman, Nason, Zhu, & De Cieri, 2002); administrative,
developmental and role definition purposes (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007;
Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, Effectiveness of
Performance Appraisal: An Integrated Framework, 2014); evaluation, as short-term and
communication development, as long-term (Chiang & Birtch, 2010) administrative,
developmental, strategic and role definition purposes (Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014;
Iqbal M. Z., 2012). However, it is empirically evident from previous literature that
administrative and developmental purposes remained the focus of research (Iqbal, Akbar,
& Budhwar, 2014; Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; Abu-Doleh & Weir, 2007; DeNisi
- 20 -
& Gonzalez, 2000). The recent volatile business conditions foster researchers and
practitioners to openly understand the repetitively changing goals and objectives of
organizations (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). Particularly in Pakistani context,
(Khan, 2009) realized that the strategic purpose of performance appraisal requires the
wider level of awareness and far-sighted companies are setting performance appraisal to
take a competitive advantage of this orientation.
The performance appraisal purposes may fail due to several problems such as Battaglio,
2015; Kellough, 2012; Armstrong, 2010 and Lin and Kellough, 2018 studied the causes of appraisal
failure at supervisor end e.g. Poor performance standards such as (in-effective tools for
rating, poor relations with superior, minimum accuracy of performance information at the
senior level, irregular performance feedback, desperate negativity / subordinate’s
perceptions, political performance reviews, little emphasis on management’s
developmental activities, weaker relation with reward system, exceptional shortage of
rater’s motivation to rate the ratee and few rating skills in raters, Structural inconsistency
in the performance review processes). Tee, Ramis, Fernandez, & Paulsen, (2017)
gathered the responses of 112 Malaysians through a cross-sectional survey revealed
that followers' perceptions of leadership unfavorably correlated with their anger,
which in turn involved the intentions of collective action. Palaiologos, Papazekos, &
Panayotopoulou, (2011) identified some problems in appraisal systems particularly in
context of purposefulness of performance appraisal required to fulfill, the administration
system in which performance appraisal is inserted, and the processes and practices that
develop the performance appraisal system. Additionally, the system of performance
- 21 -
appraisal may be blamed for having poor criteria of evaluation and for the use of
inappropriate appraisal techniques. There may be several other reason that might result in
performance appraisal failure including biasness, inaccuracy and non-acceptance by the
employee, resultantly performance appraisal may fail to give the desired performance
output and therefore increased level of dissatisfaction, demotivation and conflicts
particularly on employee’s side. Giangreco, et al, (2012), argued that this is due to either
inclusion of erroneous contents in evaluation, unfair evaluation processes, mismatch
among individual’s needs and the purposes of appraisal or might be due to the lack of
clarity and independency in performance dimensions. Therefore, to achieve an
effective performance appraisal system, only the instrumental validity of performance
appraisal is insufficient, but how employees are reacting toward such system is also very
important. Certainly, with feelings of dissatisfaction and unfairness perceptions in the
appraisal process, the particular appraisal system will be ruined or lost (Ikramullah, et al.,
2012; Basavanthapa, 2003).
The perceptual injustice is a renowned concept in business research and considered vital
for the organizations (Ambrose, 2002). Existing literature on justice and fairness
discusses it in two main streams e.g. event (forms justice perception about an event like
performance appraisal) and entity perspective tended to form aggregate justice perception
in response to multiple events toward manager or organization (Colquitt, Zipayb, Lynchc,
& Outlaw, 2018; Colquitt & Zipay, 2015). Although there is a bulk of literature
discussing justice from event or entity perspective (Colquitt et al., 2013), but it ignored
- 22 -
justice perspective of the perceiver (Colquitt, Zipayb, Lynchc, & Outlaw, 2018) As
literature views Justice as a subjective phenomenon and lies “in the eye of the beholder”
(Konow, 2009).
Extensive literature suggests that justice / injustice perception is an important criterion
to achieve performance appraisal purposes effectively. (Jawahar, 2007) found that
ratees’ perceptions of fairness and reaction to appraisal process lead towards the
successful implementation of appraisal systems. Research is evident that the higher
fairness perceptions of performance appraisal will lead to the greater trust level and
improved appraisal system satisfaction (Harrington & Lee, 2015; Mani, 2002; Gabris &
Ihrke, 2000; Masterson, et al., 2000; Roberts & Pavlak, 1996). Whereas injustice
perceptions adversely effects the different work behaviors (Ambrose, Seabright, &
Schminke, 2002). Similarly, according to Scheuerman, Hegtvedt, & Johnson, (2017)
injustice perceptions depend on the individual’s sense making process to understand
why and how such perceptions are built upon. They draw from the attribution of blame
model of justice judgments, examining how the working groups in two different
positions understand the treatments and outcomes resulting from their interaction and
the baseless blame factors nurtures negative reactions like counterproductive behavior or
retaliation. In public sector organizations, fairness perceptions of performance appraisal
is a critical concern for the proper implementation of human resource, which is
considered to be from the more complexed and debatable in public sector organizations
(Harrington & Lee, 2015); (Kim & Rubianty, 2011; Roberts G. E., 2003). The felt
dissatisfaction, injustice in processes and discrimination in appraisals may cause failure
- 23 -
in any performance appraisal system (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994; Scheuerman, Hegtvedt,
& Johnson, 2017; Sholihin & Pike, 2009). In other words, the process of performance
appraisal can convert into a cause of high dissatisfaction once workers consider
biasness, politics or irrelevancy in appraisal process. (Rupp, Shapiro, Folger, Skarlicki,
& Shao, 2017).
This study also examines Perceived organizational support (POS) as the moderator
between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perception because it
can mitigate the negative effects on outcome variables. Organizational support theory
suggests that employees pay attention to treatment offered by the organization in order to
discern the extent to which the organization is supportive and values their contributions
(Kurtessis, et al., 2015). To this end, employees infer that the treatment offered to them
by agents of the organization is indicative of organization’s overall favorable or
unfavorable orientation towards them (Kurtessis, et al., 2015). Perceived organizational
support develops by meeting employees’ socioemotional needs and showing readiness to
reward employees’ extra efforts and to give help that would be needed by employees to
do their jobs better (Kurtessis, et al., 2015). Employees who perceive that the
organization is supportive of them and committed to helping meet their socioemotional
and tangible needs will reciprocate by helping the organization achieve its goals
(Parzefall & Salin 2010). A large body of evidence indicates that employees with high
levels of POS judge their jobs more favorably (e.g., increased job satisfaction, more
positive mood and reduced stress) and are more invested in their organization (e.g.,
increased effective organizational commitment, increased performance and reduced
- 24 -
turnover; see review by Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Studies
have found that employees with high POS suffer less stress at work and are more inclined
to return to work sooner after injury (Shaw et al., 2013).
Previous literature also highlights that the employees with low levels of POS judge their
jobs more unfavorably e.g. Ko & Hur, (2014) reported that employees experiencing
procedural injustice might feel dissatisfaction in spite of favorable benefits. Schlkwyket
al. (2011) suggest that POS moderates in the relationship between experiences of
bullying by superiors and turnover intention. Ajay K. Jain Sabir I. Giga Cary L. Cooper,
(2013), In sum, POS is seen as leading to increased individual resources in the way of
energy and possibly time, leading to reduced stress and improved health behaviors and
ultimately improved health. Moreover, employees try to balance their attitude toward the
organization based on employees' expectations that are not met by organizations, (Probst,
Petitta, Barbaranell, & Austin, (2018) reported the Elangovan & Shapiro’s betrayal
perspective presented in (1998) to understand the influence of negative events on
employee bеhaviours and how perceived organizational support might reduce the
negative consequences like possible threats in relationship between performance
appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perception. BAL, Chiaburu, and Jansen
(2010) considered the betrayal perspective as the inconsistency of expectations in social
relationships, i.e., the worker expects the organization to play a supporting role but the
organization does not meet his/her expectations. Thus, we expect perceived
organizational support to be a contextual factor that moderates the relationship between
performance appraisal failure and injustice perception such that the positive relationship
- 25 -
between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perception is
minimized when POS is high.
In the light of above, discussion the study proposes that performance appraisal
purposefulness failure may influence the overall injustice perceptions of employees. Nair
and Saleh (2015) argued that if the users of performance appraisal perceive it as
unapproved or distorted and unable to fulfil its objectives they feel injustice. The
performance appraisal related injustice perceptions might negatively cause the
performance of employee at workplace (Bilal, Rafi, & Khalid, 2017). Reseach shows that
Injustice generally leads negative emotions that occur in response to automotive reactions
like retaliation and lower in-role performance. Prior literature recommended that
individuals not only show dissatisfaction against injustice; but also respond in some or other
way. Therefore, it may be concluded that justice violations might escalate the victim’s desire
to punish the offender or retaliation. Retaliation costs to organization and might lead to
many unwanted outcomes (e.g., Thau & Mitchell, 2010; Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010).
Research also evident that perceived organizational support might mitigate the effects of
performance appraisal failure on injustice perceptions. Grote in 1996 discussed that
generally, individuals support the basic concept behind Performance appraisal purposes,
despite of having concerns for the procedures and applicability of performance appraisal
results by supervisors. Therefore, this research is aimed to investigate the relationship
between performance appraisal failure and in-role performance and retaliation with the
mediating effects of overall injustice perception. The research also introduces POS as
potential moderator in the relationship of performance appraisal purposefulness failure
- 26 -
and overall injustice perceptions of employee in context of performance appraisal in
public organizations.
GAP ANALYSIS:
The previous studies evaluated the effects of performance appraisal purposefulness on
organizational outcomes e.g. Administrative purposes effect on organizational
commitment (Cheng S. Y., 2014); administrative and developmental purposes with
satisfaction of rater, ratee and feedback (Palaiologos, Papazekos, & Panayotopoulou,
2011); influences of administrative purposes, developmental purposes and role
definition purposes on satisfaction with the performance appraisal, job satisfaction, role
ambiguity, and affective commitment (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). But there are
few and patchy empirical researches about the influences of the performance appraisals
purposes failure on significant organizational results (Iqbal, Akbar, Budhwar, & Shah,
2019; DeNisi & Murphy, 2017; Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014, 2015; Landy & Farr,
1980). Such as impact of low quality, PA experiences on organizational commitment
(Brown et al. 2010). Moreover, there is a call for research in literature on the usage of an
effective criterion that helps to achieve the appraisal purposes, that explains the reasons
about the implementation of performance appraisals (Iqbal., 2012). Many researcher
have discussed the consequences of failure of performance appraisal purposes on
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of employee but no or few have studied this so far.
However, the failure of performance appraisal purposes have not been studied earlier
- 27 -
with in-role performance and retaliation. Moreover, the initial focus of previous research
was on its two dimensions, administrative and developmental purposes of performance
appraisal (Selvarajan & Cloninger, 2008; Zimmerman, Mount, & Goff, 2008). Whereas, the
other two namely role-definition and strategic purposes remained relatively untouched
(Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; (Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014). Therefore, there is
few or no empirical research, which has inventoried all the four types of performance
appraisal purposefulness failure at one place. Therefore, this research not only inclined
to study the impact of performance appraisal purposefulness failure on in-role
performance and retaliation, two important organizational consequences but also aimed
to examine all the four types of performance appraisal purposes failure at the same time.
The study assesses the perceived organizational support (POS) as moderator between the
purposefulness failure of performance appraisal and overall injustice perceptions. Several
studies evaluated the POS ie the relationship between perceived job autonomy and
turnover intention was moderated by POS (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2013). Supervisory
perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) serves as moderator between the LMX, job
satisfaction, and job performance (Erdogan & Enders, 2007). Perceived organizational
Support was tested as moderator by Jain, Giga, and Cooper, (2013) between
Organizational Stressors and Organizational Citizenship bеhaviour. Perceived
Organizational Support plays a moderating role between the relationship of Emotional
Labor / Outcome Relations (Duke, Goodman, Treadway, & Breland, 2009). The
moderating effects of POS between organizational justice and objective measurement of
cardiovascular health (Rineer, Truxillo, Bodner, Hammer, & Kraner, 2017) but fails to
- 28 -
measure perceived organizational support as moderator between Performance appraisal
purposefulness’ failure, and overall injustice perceptions in context of performance
appraisal.
Since PA needs to measure the work performance of employees (Murphy &Cleveland
1995), so whether or not the appraisal is perceived as fair or unfair is critical with respect
to its successful implementation. Although there is abundant literature tested the
organizational justice and injustice perceptions as mediator among different
organizational variables like Mediation of organizational justice between HR practices
and workplace outcomes (Zhang & Agarwal, 2009); Justice as mediator between
administrative purposes and organizational commitment (Cheng S. Y., 2014); the
relationship between pay for performance and job satisfaction is mediated by the
interactional justice (Ismail et al., 2011); Organizational Justice as a Mediator of the
Relationships Between Leader-Member Exchange and Employees' Turnover Intentions
(Lee, Murrmann, Murrmann, & Kim, 2010), but little or no research has attempted to
examine the mediating effects of injustice perception between performance appraisal
purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation.
Moreover, there is bulk literature on discussing the dimensionality of organizational
justice e.g. (Greenberg J. , 1986; Erdogan, 2002; Colquitt J. , 2001; Colquitt & Shaw,
2005; Colquitt, et al., 2012; Colquitt, et al., 2013; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,
2000; Simons & Roberson, 2003) but this study has examined the overall injustice as
mediator. Ambrose M. L. in (2009a) and Ambrose & Schminke, (2009b) emphasized on
- 29 -
the use of overall justice / injustice perceptions because the focus on its single
dimensionality might not produce the intensity and richness of individual’s justice
experiences. Similarly, a shift in research attention from singular dimensionality to
overall justice judgments may give comprehensive considerations of justice in
organizational context (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Lind & van den Bos, 2002;
Hauenstein, et al., 2001; Lind E. A., 2001a; Lind E. A., 2001b;). So this research will
consider the overall justice/injustice perceptions of employees. Justice helps employees
to be respective and trustworthy towards their organization even when the prevailing
circumstances do not favour them (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). Previous research on
organizational justice is also evident of use of different dimensions as a mediator among
different attitudes and behaviors such as (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Lind E. A., 2001a;
Colquitt & Shaw, 2005) However, researcher found only one study conducted by (Ambrose
& Schminke, 2009b), who have examined overall justice/injustice as mediator. It is
generally known that the lack of justice is more likely to be problematic for
organizations. The literature is strongly evident that injustice may foster workplace
retaliation, lower employee performance, and damage worker’s morale (Ambrose, Wo, &
Griffith, 2015; Colquitt, et al., 2013; Harrington & Lee, 2015). Due to immense
importance of both sides of justice at workplace, (Colquitt, et al., 2013) in a meta-
analysis, emphasis the need of further research on justice to affective outcomes (such
as retaliation and performance). Therefore, to fill this gap in literature, this research
offers a theoretical reflection on the importance of the injustice at work as a mediating
- 30 -
variable in explaining the relationship between performance appraisal purposes failure
and the poor task performance and increased retaliation at workplace.
Probst, Petitta, Barbaranell, & Austin, (2018) tested the perceived organizational and
supervisor support as moderator on the relationship of job insecurity and moral
disengagement. Djurkovic et al. (2008) have examined POS as a moderator of the
relationship between workplace bullying and intention to leave, and they have advocated
for more studies examining the joint effects of workplace stressors and POS on various
work outcomes that are important to organizations. Performance appraisal purposefulness
serves as stressor and change the extends the negative justice perception of individual
regarding the distribution of rewards. POS however, may moderate this relationship.
Therefore, this study explored the moderating effects of perceived organizational support
on the relationship between performance appraisal purposes failure and injustice
perceptions, which are not previously examined to the researcher’s best knowledge.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Previous literature on performance appraisal has largely emphasized on effectiveness of
performance appraisal (Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014; 2015). An effective Performance
appraisal significantly and positively effects the employee as well as organizational
performance. Moreover, it develops the employees understanding and acceptance of
appraisal related norms in organization (Lin & Kellough, 2018). Performance appraisal as
an essential part of performance management plays a key role in public sector reforms
- 31 -
widely spread in several Western and non-western countries (Pollitt
& Bouckaert, 2017). Performance appraisal is still a key problem in the case of Public
sector organizations (Harrington & Lee, 2015; Kim & Holzer, 2015; McEvoy, 1990). For
instance, (Prowse & Prowse, 2009) studied the aims and methods of performance
appraisal, and the problems faced by the appraisal process. He concluded that even with
the presence of greater criticism and evidences, the opponents cannot suggest a good
alternative for appraisal process which can deliver appropriate feedback, improve
motivational level, recognize training requirements and possible evidences to rationalize
latent career development and reward justification ((Prowse & Prowse, 2009). The
absence of identical acceptance of the performance appraisal purposes leads towards
higher levels of dissatisfaction mainly in Asian societies, where the usage of performance
appraisal is very restricted (Cheng & Cascio, 2009). Performance appraisal fairness is a
critical issue in theory and practice (Rusli &Sopian, 2013) because performance appraisal
is linked with rewards, promotions and many other incentives distributed to employees
particularly in public sector organizations. Despite of substantial benefits of performance
appraisals, the little practices of performance appraisal left it under-utilized in some
organizations. Literature reports that both raters and ratees supports its usage (Kim &
Holzer, 2014; Kim & Rubianty, 2011). Prior literature is evident of a decreased level of
confidence in the effectiveness, veracity, and justice of public performance appraisal
(Kim & Holzer, 2014; Kellough & Nigro, 2002; Gaertner & Gaertner, 1985). For
instance, Kunreuther in (2009) described the few important adverse attitudes and
bеhaviours towards the prevailing performance appraisal practices in public sector
- 32 -
organizations. The research concludes that public sector employees are more tended to
develop injustice perceptions towards their jobs and performance appraisal decisions
(Aslam, Arfeen, Mohti, & Rahman, 2015; Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002).
Therefore, this research is inclined to address this problem by studying the effects of
failure of performance appraisal purposes on employee feelings of injustice and its
consequent influences of in-role performance and retaliation behavior. Second, the study
supposed to test the mediating role of an injustice perception in the relationship between
performance appraisal purposes failure and in-role behavior and retaliation. Thirdly, the
research is inclined to analyze the moderating role of POS in the relationship between
performance appraisal purposes failure and perceived injustice.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
➢ Does the perceived performance appraisal purposes (administrative,
developmental, strategic and role definition) failure cause Injustice perception?
➢ Does injustice perception mediate the relationship between different facets of
appraisal purposefulness failure and dependent variables (e.g. in-role performance
and retaliation)?
➢ Is there a relationship in injustice perceptions and in-role performance and
retaliation?
- 33 -
➢ Does Perceived organizational support as moderator influence the relationship
among determinants of perceived performance appraisal purposes (administrative,
developmental, strategic and role definition) failure and injustice perceptions?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
The particular research objectives are as follows:
➢ To study the impact of performance appraisal purposefulness failure and its
effects on injustice perception.
➢ To examine the negative consequences of failure of different performance
appraisal purposes (e.g. administrative, developmental, strategic and role
definition).
➢ To understand how injustice perceptions effects in-role performance and
retaliation in case of perceived failure in the achievement of performance
appraisal purposes.
➢ To investigate the moderating role of POS between performance appraisal
purposefulness failure and injustice perceptions.
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:
1.1.1 Theoretical significance:
- 34 -
Though the appraisals are important facts of organizational life, but still is not wholly
conceptualized and valued in all of its forms i.e. appraisals, appraising and appraisal
systems (Abu-Doleh & Weir, 2007). Similarly, (Ferris, Munyon, Basik, & Buckley,
2008), stated that an investigation of complex settings of appraisal will allow us to well
understand its challenges. A perceived failure in Performance appraisal purposefulness,
which is from the basic criterion of the effectiveness of performance appraisal intensely
influence the employee justice perception and causes a poor performance and retaliatory
behavior. Despite having extensive researches in all three fields e.g. performance
appraisal, injustice perception, and employee behaviors, not much has been explored to
integrate these and try to find the potential relationship between this variable, which is
the intention of this study. (Rosen, Chang, Johnson, & Levy, 2009) stressed on the
exploration of recent emergence of numerous similar notions like “organizational justice”
overall perceptions of justice (Colquitt, Zipayb, Lynchc, & Outlaw, 2018) and argued
that all above notions put emphasis on understanding the nature of mutual relationships
among individuals and organizations. Moreover, according to (Viswesvaran & Ones,
2002), the changing facets of employment contract and contemporary changes in work
settings has underpinned the managerial debates of justice. Additionally, this study
contributes to current literature in four ways.
First, the study uses organizational justice theory (greeberg, 1986) with an emphasis of
overall justice (Colquitt, Zipayb, Lynchc, & Outlaw, 2018; Ambrose, Wo, & Griffith,
2015) to explain the theoretical model, which incorporates performance appraisal,
injustice and employee behaviors (in-role performance and retaliation). Bulk of literature
- 35 -
studied the dimensionality of justice but there is lack of empirical research applying the
overall justice theory in the organizational context particularly to deal with performance
appraisal related problems and negative behavioral outcomes.
Second, the study advances performance appraisal research by introducing the overall
injustice as a mediator between performance appraisal purposefulness failure in-role
performance and retaliation. As (Guest, 2004) stress on finding the fresh theoretical
premise to define and examine the employment relations in the different setting.
Third, performance appraisal purposefulness is an important contextual factor and need to
be study for an effective performance appraisal system (Levy & Williams, 2004; Murphy &
DeNisi, 2008), were included in model to see the influences of failure of performance appraisal
purposes on important organizational outcomes. Very little known about the important
structural and psychosomatic causes that change the fairness / unfairness perception of
employee performance evaluation, particularly in public sector organizations (Harrington
& Lee, 2015). Concerning to the rising employment problems, this investigation will
further shape our acceptance of various exchange procedures carried out in organizational
settings in the current employment relationship.
Fourth, the study measures the moderating effects of perceived organizational support
among performance appraisal purposefulness failure, and overall injustice perception,
which lacks considerable previous research.
1.1.2 Managerial Justification:
- 36 -
Because the PA purposes are from the important causes that influences its main
characteristics and rating quality, this research implies the practical insights for
professionals by including frequent suggestions to advance criteria for performance rating
and its measurement (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). Importantly the study serves
the need of different managerial positions who are responsible to appraise the ratee or be
appraised in particular. As literature suggested that performance appraisal purposefulness
failure has significant effects on the criteria of rating and its quality; this research will
assist the managers to enhance the performance appraisals characteristics and quality of
its rating criteria in the public firms. The study will disclose the innate weaknesses of
performance appraisal system currently in practice in civil service of Pakistan and help
civil servants to understand the real phenomenon behind the negative behaviors of
employees. The study will further suggest that good supervisory relation with an
employee has a potential to decrease the effects of negative behavior toward workplace
and emphasis to advance effective measures for appraising the performance grades beside
conventional principles.
1.1.3 Contextual Justification:
There is limited empirical research on performance appraisals, justice perception, and
particularly in the public sector (Harrington & Lee, 2015); (Kim & Rubianty, 2011).
Nearly the most of existing research on performance appraisal and injustice perception
research is conducted in a western context, illuminating a lack of studies in the non-
Western countries. Skarlicki (2001) argued that presuming the recent perspective of
- 37 -
universal fairness, researchers overlook the inherent differences in cultures of different
countries. The cross-cultural studies on organizational injustice are important due to
theoretical, cognitive and practical aspects as culture enhances our theoretical
understanding of the way people give meanings to different events and express the
appropriate behaviors (Skarlicki, 2001) , how they perceive the justice in different
cultures may enhance our understanding of culture itself (Greenberg, 1996) and will also
help the researchers and managers to find the determinants and outcomes of justice
perception (Skarlicki, 2001). The research is important because of increased
disappointment and dissatisfaction of employees from prevailing performance appraisal.
This has motivated experts and human resources managers to measure the influence of
performance evaluation systems for employees and, finally, the performance of the
organization (Long, Kowang, Khairuzzaman, Ismail & Rasid, 2013).
Therefore, more research is needed in different countries with different cultural
backgrounds, especially in Asia. The organizational setting and beliefs of people in
collectivist cultures like Pakistan are bluntly dissimilar from that normal institute in a
Western perspective and characterized to have excessive relational and encouragement
requirements (Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004). As collectivist cultures have greater respect
for hierarchy and emphasized in personal relations; managing style is usually
paternalistic and people symbolically view organizations as a family representative
(Aycan, 2001). Thus, an investigation of the advent and operationalization of justice
- 38 -
procedures in collectivist cultures will improve our acceptance of the motivational
foundations of attitudes and behaviors of employees at work in a modest economy.
DEFINITION OF IMPORTANT TERMS
The following terms are relevant to this research.
Performance appraisal—is a mechanism designed to evaluate the competence in terms
of knowledge skills and abilities of public officers in comparison to the assigned tasks
(Oettmeier & Kenney, 2001).
Perceived Performance appraisal purposefulness failure— the user’s perceptual
discontentment from performance appraisal purposes with their available choices is
denoted as performance appraisal purposefulness failure.
Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure—Perceptual failure in meeting the
user’s expectations about salary; promotion; retention; performance standards; layoffs;
and procedures opted for the identification poor performance.
Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure—Perceptual failure in meeting the
user’s expectations about identification of individuals’ training needs; performance
feedback; determination of transfers and assignments; and identification of individuals’
strengths and weaknesses.
Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure—Perceptual failure in meeting the user’s
expectations about personnel planning, determine organizational training needs, evaluate
goal achievement, assist in goal identification, evaluate personnel systems, reinforce
authority structure, identification of organization’s development needs.
- 39 -
Perceived Role definition purposefulness failure— Perceptual failure in meeting the
user’s expectations about criteria for validation research, document personnel decisions,
meeting legal requirements.
Overall Injustice perception—overall perceptions of injustice as work stressor
undermine individuals’ psychological and physical functioning (Cropanzano et al. 2005).
In-role performance— execution of the basic job duties or core task behavior (Zhu,
2013).
Retaliation—felt need to punish and make a firm pay for what has happened (Market
Lett, 2006).
Civil Servant—Public servant or a member of civil service
Ratee—the subordinate who is evaluated
Rater—a supervisory officer completing a performance appraisal.
40
2. CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
RELEVANT THEORY:
This study discusses organizational justice theory as an overarching theory as it is one of
the most salient concerns from numerous issues considered important for employees in
organizational context. Justice reveals the perceived observance to organizational rules,
which characterize relevance in decision-making process (e.g., equity, consistency,
respect, truthfulness). This study first review the organizational justice theory, and then it
summarize empirical work on organizational justice in context of performance appraisal
and its purposefulness failure. Then the hypothesis are developed using mainly
organizational justice theory as an overarching theory, and the study will use two sub
theories e.g. the taxonomy of fairness perception (Greenberg, 1993) and fairness theory
(Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) due to its importance for the study in explaining the
relationships. Finally, this chapter presents theoretical framework.
2.1.1 Organizational Justice Theory:
During the last 10 years,the theory of organizational justice has emerged as a
fundamental concept and main research concern in the fields of industrial and
organizational psychology (Greenberg, 1990a, b). Organizational Justice is essentially the
perception of justice and its reaction toward such perceptions within the organizational
setting (Greenberg, 1987). According to Colquitt, (2001) the meaning of fairness or
41
justice derived from previous research link the objective aspects of organizational decision
making to the subjective perceptions of fairness. Organizational justice theory serves as
basis for theorizing the individual’s perceptions regarding the fairness of treatment he /
she received from supervisor or organization. The theory of organizational justice has
been developed gradually, and the debate on the dimensions of perceptions of justice and
their interrelationships has a substantive history. In a recent meta-analysis Colquitt,
(2001) identified three justice research streams. (a) Justice research focus on issues
related to construct discrimination for example how much different justice constructs
distinctive from each other?, (b) the Greenberg’s “proactive research” (1987b) can be
explained as the research dedicated on the creation of fairness perceptions, (c) is the
Greenberg’s “reactive research” (1987b) which emphasis on understanding the
individual’s reaction towards fairness or unfairness.
With the development of organizational justice theory, researchers and scholars have
classify organizational justice perceptions into different categories including distributive
justice (Leventhal, 1976; Homans, 1961), which discusses to the degree of fairness the
outcomes contains. Second is procedural justice as explained by (Thibaut & Walker,
1975), concerned with the fairness of processes used to assign the outcomes. Third is
interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986), discusses the interpersonal dealing that
one receives during the promulgation of organizational procedures. Greenberg (1986)
established a two-factor model of justice that consists of Distributive Justice
(favourability of results) and Procedural justice components through factor analysis of the
42
qualitative investigation of the fairness of performance evaluation. He defines Procedural
Justice as the extent to which the process is considered fair and distributive Justice as a
fair result or outcomes. Subsequently, Procedural Justice is divided into interpersonal
components and System Components (Moorman, 1991).
However, Recently, Colquitt and colleagues (2018) called for a re-examination of the three-
faceted model of judicial cognition. They proposed a four-sided model of justice perceptions,
including “Distributive Justice”, “Procedural Justice”, “Interpersonal Justice”, and
“informational justice” (Colquitt et al. 2012; Colquitt, 2001). In meta-analysis and factor
analysis studies, Colquitt and his colleagues conclude that the Distributive, Procedural,
Interpersonal, and Informational dimensions of justice are distinct structures that are related to
different outcomes.
2.1.2 Why justice is Important?
Various reasons for the importance of justice research has been identified by different
scholars (Crawshaw, et al., 2013; Ambrose, 2002; Greenberg, 2001a; Cropanzano, Byrne
et al., 2001). Prior research differentiate the three reasons for justice, first is instrumental
causes, second is relationship causes and third is accountability causes (Fortin, 2008;
Cropanzano, Byrne et al., 2001; Cropanzano, et al., 2001). Cropanzano et al., in (2001a)
discussed these three aspects under the assumptions of content Theory and argued that
they are not mutually exclusive; for some people, it is instrumental, for others it is
relational and the remaining might consider it for accountability reasons (Cropanzano,
Rupp et al. 2001).
43
2.1.2.1 Instrumental model:
Instrumental model raises personal concerns about fairness because it offers mechanisms
to control and ensure the predictability and profitability of their results and rewards
Cropanzano, et al. (2001) reported that employees are more concerned for fairness due to
“self-interest” and to ensure the personal income gains. Therefore, employees may prefer
organizations where there is fair distribution of promotions, payments, and allocation of
Resources - because they want to get these benefits in the future.
2.1.2.2 The relationship model:
The relationship model assumes that individuals are more careful about justice because of
their concerns for identity. Employees’ forms the perceptions of self-respect and self-
esteem when receive fairness from a group of colleagues or organizations that meet their
needs for insertion and maintaining relationship (Blader & Tyler, 2005; Cropanzano, et
al., 2001). The relationship model emphasizes the individual’s hope appreciation, respect
and inclusion in some valued groups. A sense of fairness, especially procedural justice,
helps individuals to explain their status and respect in a group.
2.1.2.3 Deontic Model
The deontic model also known as moral virtue model (Folger, 2001). The model sates
that justice is a basic demand and driving force of people to respect human values and
dignity. This model shows employees have an inner need to survive in a moral social
system. Folger's model of moral virtue (2001) shows personal concern about fairness,
44
because this is the right thing to do. At the encounter of injustice, employees may not
only show concerns for instrumental and relational motives, but also reacts against the
deontic motives. For example, Deontic model shows that there have been unjust
situations, such unequal distribution of rewards against performance appraisal will trigger
the an emotional uncertainty against this moral violation or “Deontic violation” and
resultantly prompts individuals to display negative behavior such as lower employee
performance or retaliation.
2.1.2.4 Organizational Injustice
Injustice means that the employee believes that he or she (or someone else) is being
treated unfairly. Employees who feel unfairly treated may try to “even score” through
negative behaviour at organization. Furham and Siegal (2011) in their study of reactions to
organizational injustice identified that the employees, who face injustice and unfair treatment,
become dissatisfied with their job and management and thus their dissatisfaction results into
a threat for organization by negative work behavior e.g. employee deviance, retaliation, revenge
or any other CWB. Crino (1994) observed, an employee who was disrespected, receives
delay in due promotions, additional responsibilities without increments or additional
payments, limited provision of resources to complete the work, or did not get what he
believes important to get for managing the people has more potential to display negative
behavior towards the organization.
Prior literature provides ample evidence for the frequent detriments of injustice at
workplace (e.g. Neuman & Baron, 1998; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Robinson & Bennett,
45
1997; Crino & Leap, 1989;, 1996; Crino, 1994; Tucker, 1993; Sieh, 1987). Empirical
research on the injustice shows that it is related to different types of negative workplace
behaviours, such as aggression directed against supervisors (Greenberg & Barling, 1999),
theft (Greenberg, 1993a, b); greater intent to leave (Dailey & Kirk, 1992; Konovsky &
Cropanzano, 1991), vandalism (DeMore, Fisher, & Baron, 1988) and absenteeism
(Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002; Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002). In their study on
injustice and retaliation, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that conditions of multiple
unfairness (distributive, procedural, and interactional) were associated with higher levels
of organizational retaliatory behavior In addition, Skarlicki et al. (1999) studied deviant
behavior among organizational members and identified that the negative affectivity
characterized by negative emotions caused deviant behavior. Gilliland and Chan (2001) put
forth a significant evidence suggesting a relationship between the perception of
organizational injustice and negative voluntary behavior within organizations. Kelloway et al.
(2007, 2008) proposed that injustice refers to an employee's belief and perception of his or
her being treated unfairly which further leads to counterwork behavior and may even force the
victims to ''even the score'' by counteracting and thus threatening the well-being of
organization or its members, or both (Bies & Tripp, 2005). Robinson (2008) studied the
organizational injustice and deviant work behavior and found that employees perceiving
unjustice tend to react and this leads to counterproductive behavior. Jones (2008) further
proposed that DWB manifests employees' desire for revenge as a reaction to perceived
injustice. similarly injustice may predict positive organizational outcomes negatively like
46
2.1.3 Organizational Justice Verses Injustice
Most scholars used notion of ‘justice’ to explain the employee's fairness concerns in
workplace, however, few recent studies have proposed that discussing injustice is more
appropriate due to its serious consequences for organizational work (De Cremer and
Ruiter, 2003). Such a change in the use of terminology is due to the wealth of literature
and greater concentration of justice research on discussing in-justice rather than to justice
as the main workplace concern (Bies, 2001), and perceptions of injustice more strongly
affect the employee than that of justice or fairness (Judge & Colquitt, 2004, Folger &
Cropanzano, 1998). Folger, (1984) argued that the study of injustice rather than justice
will provide more logical and rational reasons to academics and professionals.
In addition, justice experts agree that people respond to injustice differently from justice
(Colquitt et al, 2014, Organ, 1990). Injustice has become the strongest cause of the
individual’s responses and reactions at workplace (Cropanzano et al, 2011). Injustice is a
"hot cognitive process ... in which cognitive and emotional determinants often work
together to produce judgments, people think they are just or unfair" (Venden Bos, 2007).
Moreover, (Colquitt and colleagues, 2015) claimed that to view overall fairness and
overall unfairness in bivariate terms is conceptually more valuable because it is an
aggregate evaluation formed from the bracketing of multiple justice events, experiences,
and dimensions. As such, overall fairness and overall unfairness resemble the positive
and negative evaluations, and the positive and negative affect, that have been studied in
bivariate terms. Although the utility of this approach would need to be explored in future
research, it could allow scholars to capture, say, a boss Who was fair in some respects
47
(e.g., chronic procedural and informational rule adherence) but unfair in Other respects
(e.g., chronic distributive and interpersonal rule violation). Therefore, the present study
focused on overall injustice, rather than justice.
This research is inclined to examine the employee’s overall injustice perception in the
performance appraisal context and its influence on different organizational outcomes.
"The overall fairness theory is conceptualized to understand employees' perceptions of
Overall injustice perceptions. To better understand the practical significance of justice
perceptions, the study examined overall injustice perceptions in response to performance
appraisal purposefulness failure and how injustice perceptions predicts attitudes and
behavioral outcomes.
2.1.4 Overall injustice:
From the last few decades justice scholars remained interested in probing the different
facets of justice / injustice, its features, important for the reward or outcome distribution,
the procedures followed for allocation of outcomes, and the way individuals are treated
by their supervisor during the provision of outcomes, indeed the justice research has
advanced by highlighting and identifying the distinctions between different types of
injustice. But now after 50 years of research on making distinctions in different types of
injustice, researchers are looking for a more holistic view of justice and began to research
the notion of overall injustice as an important construct which was ignored previously
(Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b). Brockner and colleagues (1986) and Krebhiel &
48
Cropanzano (Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000) found that injustice that is in one’s favor
produces different emotions than injustice that is not.
2.1.4.1 Theoretical implications for Overall injustice
The relationship between injustice and negative organizational outcomes (e. g. deviant
work behavior, retaliation, sabotage, CWB) has been well documented (eg Berry, Ones,
& Sackett., 2007; Conlon, Jones & Skarlick, 2005; Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005; Meyer, &
Nowakowski, 2005; O'Brien and Vandello, 2005; Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke,
2002; Bennett & Robinson, 2002; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Trevino & Weiver, 2001;
Porter, & Ng, 2001; Greenberg, 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Aquino, Lewis,
& Bradfield, 1999; Greenberg, 1990;). Empirical studies by Ambrose et al. (2002), Jones
and Skarlicki (2005), and Trevino and Weaver (2005) show that perceived injustice is a
strong predictor of employee harmful behaviors. . Organizational injustice suggests that
individuals do not feel that they are treated fairly by the organization, management or
colleagues (Greenberg, 2004). Previous literature divides it into three sub-dimensions,
namely, procedural justice, distributive justice, and interactive justice (Ambrose et al.,
2002; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002). Procedural injustice takes into account the
unfairness of the processes and procedures implemented by the supervisor or
organization. It refers the way individuals are treated in a process or event, such as during
termination or reorganization or daily activities (Cropanzano et al., 2002). Distributive
injustice refers to whether an individual believes that the benefits and rewards of
organizational distribution are fairly distributed (Aquino et al., 1999). If the individual
believes that he or she is not properly compensated, this will result in a perception of
49
unfair distribution or unfairness. Interactive justice refers to the daily contact and
socialization of employees with their superiors and colleagues (Henle, 2005). For
example, if an employee is abused by a boss, the employee will find an injustice in
interaction (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).
Past researchers have emphasized whether various types of injustice have differentially
predicted certain forms of negative behavior in the workplace (Bennett & Robinson,
2003), such as theft (Greenberg, 2002). Ambrose and Arnaud (2005) point out that the
main focus of organizational justice research is to examine the unique differences in each
type of justice (eg, distribution, procedures, and interactive justice) to demonstrate the
utility of different types of justice. . In addition, many studies have evaluated the
relationship between different types of organizational injustice and workplace bias
patterns (Ambrose et al., 2002; Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004). However, Ambrose
and Arnaud (2005) argue that focusing on unique variances may obscure the overall
impact of fairness on outcome variables. Other researchers have also called for more
attention to overall fairness (Greenberg, 2001). Greenberg (2001, p. 21) asserts that when
individuals form a perception of justice, they are making a “holistic judgment in which
they make all available and significant information. reaction". For example, unfair
victims do not necessarily worry about the existence of two or more types of justice, but
rather respond to the general experience of injustice (Shapiro, 2001). In addition, there
has been frequent research calls in literature for overall justice because it provides a more
modern, accurate and concise description of the real-life experience of employees (e.g.
Ambrose & Arnaud 2005; Ambrose & Schminke 2009; Lind 2001a; Lind 2001b; Shapiro
50
2001 ; Tornblom & Vermunt, 1999). Therefore, we believe that overall organizational
injustice is an important structure to explain employee participation in workplace bias.
The overall injustice is important concept to examine due to several reasons as discussed
by (Ambrose, Wo, & Griffith, 2015; Holtz & Harold, 2009). Overall injustice is a better
phenomenon to represent thein justice experience of individual because previous
researches shows that individual may differentiate among different types of justice but
they experience justice in a holistic manner. Secondly overall injustice gives a complete
representation of its influences in on specific situation in organization. Thirdly, the
injustice scholars often establish similar estimates to examine the different kinds of
justice, which shows that researchers are more interested in measuring the overall effect
rather than its dimensions. Fourth, overall injustice enhances the predictability of
outcomes and at last, overall justice can be studied as a motivational force relative to
other motivational forces.
Moreover, some other research Barcley and Saldhana (2015) identified some other
factors also first; there is considerable ambiguity in the literature on distinguishing justice
and in-justice. Many scholars differentiate justice and in-justice and treat them as
different concepts (eg Bies, 2001; Gilliland, 2008). In addition, Colquitt, and colleague
(2010) have empirically demonstrated that focusing on "unfair" measures (for example,
focusing on being seen as rude rather than respectfully waiting) about "justice." However,
these structures are often used interchangeably; many scholars focus on justice when they
are committed to researching injustices and vice versa (see Bies & Tripp, 2002).
Researchers often use scales that focus on the criterion of justice when exploring the
51
unjust experience of individuals (See Colquitt, 2001). Research from Barclay and
Whiteside (2011); Hillebrandt and Barclay, (2013); Whiteside and Barclay, (2013)
argued that the experience of in-justice and justice may be different and that justice may
be a more cognitive phenomenon, that injustice may be full of emotion, It is unlikely to
be captured solely by personal opinion. Rather, injustice may be better understood by
exploring how individuals experience unjustness (Barclay & Whiteside, 2011;
Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2013; Shapiro, 2001). It also shows that unjust measures need to
go beyond perceptual standards to include unjust experiences. In addition, this distinction
also shows that the restoration of justice may be a different phenomenon. Clearly, more
research is needed to differentiate these structures (and to develop measures that can
assess justice and injustice).
At last, however, individuals may experience unfair situations in other areas (such as
personal relationships) and experience negative situations unrelated to justice. This
necessitate enquiring whether management of injustice is a particular situation or a
broader phenomenon (for example, recovered from negative experiences). In our view, an
unjust recovery from an organization may share many characteristics with other
violations - for example, those experiences are likely to be personal stressors and trigger
the need to respond in some way (Vermunt & Steensma, 2001). However, we also think
there may be differences among organizational injustice and other negative experiences.
These differences may be related to organizational settings that are uniquely related to
unfair experiences (and other negative phenomena), workplace-related contextual factors
(eg, organizational culture, constraints on the ability to express certain emotions or
52
behaviors), and according to Barclay & Kiefer, (2014) the differences related to the
nature of the work relationship (eg, norms, roles, powers / status, etc.). Therefore, it is
suggested that more theoretical and conceptual work is needed to further clarify the
commonalities and differences between organizational injustices in the context of other
phenomena.
In fact, Colquitt et al, (2014), referred the researchers who used scales widely to measure
justice that emphasizes compliance with the norms of justice, while to measure injustice
the focus will be to measure the violation of the norms of justice The notion explains that
when the employee perceives that the violation of the rules of justice has stronger effects
on the response and reaction of the employee towards adherence to the rule of injustice, it
has become a challenge in the justice literature (Colquitt et al. al, 2014).
APPLYING ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE THEORY ON PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL AND ITS PURPOSEFULNESS:
Previous research states that justice have significant influences on both of supervisor’s
and subordinate’s reactions to performance appraisal. According to Landy, et al., (1980)
people in specific situations are more expected to have faith in on the fairness and
accuracy of their performance appraisal. For instance, the individuals carries positive
opinions about fairness when they perceive that the managers were aware about their
work, they have regular performance appraisals, when there is an opportunity to share
their view during interviews and in the interview their clear goals are set for them to
perform.
53
The identification of fairness issue highlighted in these two studies, the justice
performance appraisal research trend gradually decrease during 1980. In depth review of
research on performance appraisal from 1985 to 1990s, there’s found merely one research
discussing fairness problems.
Greenberg in (1986a) applied the justice theory in the area of performance appraisal. He
importantly found that “what could make the appraisal system be perceived as just?” the
answer found discussed the two distinct facets of justice (e.g. distributive justice and
procedural justice). He further divided these factors in seven classes leading to the
employee justice perceptions. The distributive justice segregated in two classes one
discusses the evaluations built upon employee’s achieved performance level and second
stands on deciding promotion or pay originated from the performance evaluations of
employee. The other five aspects were discussed form procedural justice perspective,
which comprised on one, soliciting supervisor’s response before evaluation and using this
feedback in appraisals, second requires reciprocal communication among supervisor and
subordinate for the appraisal discussion, third the capacity potential for individuals to
argument or challenge the appraisal results, fourth discusses to what extent rater is
consistently applying performance criteria, and fifth covers the familiarity of rater with
ratees’ contributions and performance (Walsh, 2003).
Since 1990, other researchers have also started to focus on the importance of justice in
performance evaluation research. The literature emerged with some important theoretic
54
models and researches. Many of these researches tried to unleash the processes inherited
in performance appraisals and procedural justice. Folger, et al in (1992) introduced ‘due
process’ metaphor to apply theory of “procedural justice” performance appraisal context.
This ‘due process’ law implies three important and basic features (e.g. “adequate notice”,
“fair hearing” and an “evidence based judgment”) to clarify nine aspects of a
performance appraisal that carries fair procedures. Adequate notice ensures that
organization must allow employees to have complete knowledge of appraisal system and
the way the system works and influence them prior to any appraisal is steered. The
organizations must have clear performance criteria and standards at first and later on a
clear distribution, allocation and explanation must be provided to the subordinate’s earlier
to the appraisal. Next, the employee should be encouraged by the organization to
participate in the development of performance objectives and criteria, and let workers to
ask questions like why and in what way goals must be reached. Lastly, organizations
must give consistent feedback to workers during the appraisal period. Secondly, fair
hearing requires to give rates in appraisal interviews and also confirms ratees to get the
chance to avail the appraisal procedures, ensures self-evaluation and test the ranks and
assessment results. In appraisal meetings, appraiser must give a performance rating built
on the individual’s behavior, his performance and work output. Fair hearing offers a
chance for two way communication and ensures the employees’ participation / voice in
some performance appraisal processes. Thirdly, the evidence based judgments requires
the regular application of performance criteria across all employees and takes assessment
decisions free from favouritism, political pressure and fraudulence. Such evaluations
55
must endure employee analysis and provide them an opportunity to inquire, appeal and
confer the evaluations with related individuals (Folger, Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1992).
A number of researches have examined the Folger, and colleage’s. (1992) model named
as “due process model”. Like Taylor, et al.,, (1995) used quasi-experimental design to
introduce an appraisal form using due process model for raters and rates in government
organizations. The results showed that the individuals involved in appraisal comprised on
due process would display more positive and adequate fairness perceptions, and are more
satisfied with their supervisors and appraisal systems comparative to members of
previous performance appraisal system. Similarly, the appraisers who opted for due
process ensured more positive reactions and larger satisfaction to their appraisal system
than the group who do not used the due process in their appraisal system. The managers
also informed that due process is helpful in problem solving and also minimizes
distortions in outcomes of performance appraisal in favour of individual.
Korsgaard and Roberson (1995) argued that employees’ voice or participation in
organizational decision making contributes as a key factor in fair hearing of model of due
process. ‘Voice’ involves positive attitude and reactions and helps to build fairness
perceptions about the organization’s system of performance appriasal. The voice
comprised on “instrumental” and “non-instrumental” parts. Thibaut & Walker tried to
explain the instrumental and in (1975), defined instrumental voice as employees’
indirect control on decision, whereas direct control on decisions does not exist. The non-
56
instrumental voice is intrinsically valued irrespective of its impact on decision making”
(Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995). This study further reported that both instrumental and
non-instrumental voice have more independent and comparable impacts on employees’
performance appraisal satisfaction. Yet, merely the non-instrumental voice influence the
subordinates’ attitude toward their supervisors. So, the research indicates trust in
manager was merely related to the non-instrumental voice.
The prior research divides procedural justice in appraisal context from two different
aspects, first is raters’ procedural justice and other is systems’ procedural justice
(Erdogan, et al., 2001); some other discussed the procedural justice is the organizational
fairness and supervisor’s fairness is interactional justice (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman and
Taylor, 2000; Moorman, 1991). According to Erdogan et al. (2001) the raters openly
participate in performance appraisal process and may impact its procedures largely. The
organizations implement the performance criteria and set fair procedures that supposed to
lead the appraisal, but if supervisors are not willing to implement those standards and
procedures in an accurate and honest manner, the individual will not perceive the
procedures as fair. Erdogan in (2001) separated supervisors’ procedural justice (involves
processes used by rater during performance appraisal from systems’ procedural justice
(discusses the organizational rules regulations and procedures adopted for performance
appraisal). The research linked the different aspects of due process with rater’s
procedural justice and system’s procedural justice. For instance, Walsh (2003) viewed
the appraisal knowledge as systems’ procedural justice; whereas he linked fair hearing
57
and giving feedback with raters’ procedural justice (Walsh, 2003). Erdogan et al. (2001)
stressed upon the need to differentiate two constructs as it’s helpful for the organization
in finding the sources of injustice and move toward improvement correctly.
Moreover prior investigations explained procedural justice in context of performance
appraisal, also focused on examining the link among fairness perceptions of employee
and attitudes of employee towards performance appraisal system. It is evident that
employee’s perceptions of distributive justice have a relationship with persons’ level of
job satisfaction or pay satisfaction; whereas the procedural justice perceptions of
employees linked with organizational commitment at employee level (Tang & Sarsfield-
Baldwin, 1996). They also established scales for measuring the distributive as well as
procedural justice in Performance Appraisal domain and apply them to get the
hypothesized results, like satisfaction of employee with promotion opportunities, pay
patterns, managers and performance appraisal system itself. The procedural justice’s
proposed scale contains 22 items, further classified in five types including “two-way
communication, fairness, trust in supervisor, understanding the performance appraisal
process and clarity of performance appraisal process”.
Over the past ten years, only few researcher examined organizational justice in context of
the performance evaluation system. Most of them focus on the effects of “distributive” or
“procedural” justice, but seldom (Cook and Crossman 2004; Erdogan et al. 2001;
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng 2001; Flint 1999; Folger, Konovsky &
58
Cropanzano, 1992). Only a few studies discuss one or both of the elements related to an
appraisal system such as employee voice (Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995); monitoring
feedback (Leung, Su & Morris, 2001); location, ability of rater and ability to challenge
outcomes (Barclay & Harland, 1995). Therefore, the prior studies on the justice of
performance evaluation widely emphasizing to explain the fairness of the results and the
formulation process. The social component of the assessment system is important but
widely overlooked. For example, Walsh (2003) found the importance of social
performance appraisals to evaluate the interpersonal relationships and opinions of
appraisers and the significance of evaluating the outcome of the selection process. In fact,
some previous studies have examined the social parts of the appraisal, but there is no
clear distinction between social distribution and procedures (Roberts & Reed, 1996;
Greenberg, 1986; Landy, Barnes & Murphy, 1978).
Greenberg in (1993) introduced an integrative justice model for appraisal system, that
comprised on four justice categories and Thurston (2001) has offered ten different scales
to measure these important justice aspects.
The Greenberg’s justice model (1993) adds the different understandings of various
justice theories and differentiate justice types from each other and each justice type’s
determinants. Greenberg in (1993) analyzed distributive and procedural justice with
structural and social determinants of justice to produce a model to depict the four further
classes of justice perceptions. Greenberg divided his model in four quadrant of justice,
one is informational justice consisting on “social-procedural”; secondly, systemic justice
59
based on “structural-procedural”; interpersonal justice indicating “social-distributive”
aspect and configural justice involve the “structural-distributive”.
The literature of different types of justice could be explained through Greenberg’s justice
taxonomy (1993). This is also helpful to examine the perceptions of employee regarding
the organization’s performance appraisal system. According to this model, the
distributive justice involves the allocation of rewards; whereas the procedural justice is
focused on answering how distribution decisions are made. However, the structural part
determines the ‘context of decision making’ about outcomes and procedures; while, the
quality of supervisor’s interactions with subordinates and how well outcomes and
procedures are communicated covered under the social component of justice. (Greenberg,
1993).
Different unique aspects of appraisal practices could be examined using the four
components of Greenberg’s model (1993). Performance appraisal’s Structural dimension
can be related with Configural and systemic justice. The ‘Configural justice’ is the
product of structurally determined distributive justice which might be relevant to the
norms of decisions associated to the organizational practices of performance appraisal,
like equity or equality norm, degree of political pressure is taken, or how appraisal
outcomes are linked to consequent decisions of administration (Walsh, 2003). ‘System
justice’ comprised on structurally determined procedural justice, also have roots in justice
model of Leventhal’s (1980). This concerned with the perceptions of employees about
60
the performance appraisal procedures such as assigning raters, deciding the criteria,
collecting relevant information or pursuing appeals. The fairness of procedures can be
accessed through the confirmation of presence of accuracy, bias suppression, consistent.
Socially determined Informational justice combined the social-procedural components of
justice characterizes the justice perceptions of employees that needs clarification of
performance standards and beliefs, raters’ clarifications and justifications of outcome
decisions and supervisor’s feedback. Socially determined interpersonal justice is made
up of social-distributive justice reveals the how supervisor treats his subordinates during
performance appraisal process whether he is respectful and sensitive toward them.
2.1.5 Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and Organizational injustice
In (1965), the Meyer, Kay, and French reported that the organizations use the
performance appraisals for several motives, and the pressure to achieve such multiple
motives could raise conflicts and contradictions in achieving appraisal goals (Cleveland,
Murphy, & Williams, 1989). The prior studies reported that the purposes of ratings
become affected with the decision about, what types of information is needed to acquire
and how the available information will be used in decision making (like Williams,
DeNisi, et al., 1985; Zedeck & Cascio, 1982). In addition, although the organization has
the purposes of collecting ratings, the raters also have goals and purpose for rating in
their minds, and according to the Murphy, Cleveland, et al., (2004) established that the
rater’s purposes are influenced by the rating attributes at the time of appraisal. In a recent
meta-analysis, Murphy and Denisie reviewed the 100-year research results of
performance evaluation in 2017 and tended to explore background factors for
61
performance evaluation. One of the most important "contextual / background factors"
affecting the assessment process is the purpose of the assessment (Landy & Farr, 1980;
Stephan & Dorfman, 1989). The organizations uses Performance appraisal for different
purposes (Cleveland et al., 1988). These objectives influence the way performance is
defined (eg, in-role performance and extra role performance (Podsakoff, Ahearne, &
MacKenzie, 1997) and how appraiser and appraise are approaching performance the
performance appraisal tasks. Literature shows that performance appraisal often has
multiple purposes (Cleveland et al., 1989). For example, the single performance appraisal
can simultaneously be used to measure the administrative as well as developmental
performance. However, the recent literature on performance appraisal purposes showed
there is no consensus on using PA for different purposes at the same time. For example,
Youngcourt et al. (2007) concluded that the purpose of PA is different and needs to be
used separately. Cheng S. Y., (2014) reported the significance of the administrative
performance evaluation (PA) approach and showed that a positively impact on the
employee, perception of justice perceptions and organizational commitment. Research
showed that PA used for administrative purposes has direct and tangible consequences
(e.g. pay and promotion) whereas for developmental purposes, no rewards are given but
employees are provided the opportunity to learn and develop. Therefore, the different
performance appraisal purposes require different functional approaches to implement a
good PA system. Similarly Iqbal M. Z., (2012) argued that to implemnet a fair and
effective perfromance appraisal system, the synchronized use of all PA categories
appears problematic to practice due to a gap in organizational motives for effective use of
62
PA and employees' perceptions about its use. Iqbal M. Z., (2012) further explained that
this gap is two-fold: administrative (when ratees have low level of confidence and trust
on raters and PA is perceived as unfair) and developmental (when ratees show no concern
about either their ratings or their raters resultant to the perception of nothing is vulnerable
due to lesser rater’s influence on rating). Therefore, the research suggests conducting a
separate PA for achieving the different types of performance appraisal purposes.
Performance appraisal can get the positive employee outcomes if implemented
effectively (Milliman, Nason, Zhu, & De Cieri, 2002). Coversely, the gaps between
firm’s objectives to conduct the PA and ratee’s perception of PA may cause a perceptual
failure of performance appraisal purposes among employees. Other causes of failure of
performance appraisal purposefulness might include poorly documented and
communicated objective of performance appraisal, minimum information and support
form top management, ambiguous performance standards, Rater’s biasness, untrained
and less motivated rater and use of PA for conflicting / political purposes. These factors
distorts or decreases the quality of PA and such employee’s experiences with PA leads to
less commitment to their organizations (Brown et al. 2010) and job satisfaction
(Kampkötter, 2016). If employees perceived a failure of Performance appraisal purposes,
such failure perception may enhance the unfairness perceptions at workplace.
According to Greenberg’s taxonomy of fairness perceptions, the employee ensures the
configural justice which lying upon the perception build upon structural aspects of
appraisal results (Greenberg, 1993). The performance appraisal is itself an outcome and it
is viewed as feedback for making the administrative decisions, which include deciding
63
about promotions, pay increases, employee training programs, and career development
initiatives (Greenberg, 1986b). The structural aspects of performance appraisal related to
distributive justice involves two types of decision norms one is equity for example rater
may be motivated to appraise the individual using Leventhal (1980) other distribution
norms also (e.g. equality, need and social status). Second is the raters personal goals
(motivation, conflict avoidance, favoritism). Performance tests that do not meet fair
criteria may not be fair to the person being evaluated. If employees think the evaluators
try to motivate them, improve their performance, or expand their perception of their
abilities, they may think the assessment is fair. Performance appraisal purposes that may
not be considered as fair if it have conflicts, favoritism and politics.
Secondly, Greenberg explained the Systemic justice- that involves the structurally
determined perceptions of justice procedures adopted to allocate the outcomes or PA
results (Greenberg, 1993). Based on the Leventhal’s (1980) model of procedural justice,
Thurston (2001) explained that the system's justice judgment will depend on the sense of
fairness of each structural component in the process of performance evaluation. These
four scales represent each stage of the performance appraisal process (distribution of
evaluators, development of standards, collection of information, and seeking of appeals.
The four procedures are based on whether they improve accuracy, inhibit prejudice,
represent the concerns of the recipients, and explores whether it is correctable and
consistent application over time.
The social aspects of performance appraisal results Greenberg, (1993) consist on
interpersonal justice. As a part of interactional justice, Interpersonal justice is based on
64
the social rewards given by the supervisors such as priority in reward and assignment
allocation. Bies and Moag explained in (1986) that the types of interpersonal justice
perceptions are built upon (respect and sensitivity). Greenberg (1991) provided evidence
that the supervisors and other representatives who influences the individuals within the
organization showed keen insight. This is the case when appraiser focus on the results
they receive. In particular, Greenberg found that appraisers' apologies and other
expressions have been shown to reduce the unfairness of rating staffs (Tyler 1988). When
authorities assert that they are sensitive, people think Interaction with police and courts is
fair.
This research is inclined to study overall justice perceptions, which are based on different
dimensions of organizational justice. Many researcher have reported that different
dimensions of justice contributes in forming overall justice or injustice perceptions (like
Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt & Shaw, 2005; Lind, 2001a), few studies have
identified the justice dimensions as antecedents of overall justice (Colquitt, 2012).
2.1.5.1 Fairness theory:
The second basis for explaining the hypothesis is the “fairness theory” by Folger and
Cropanzano presented in (1998), it explains the overall justice based on two fundamental
principles namely accountability and counterfactual thinking. Firstly, fairness theory
shows that due to the impact of accountability, factors related to procedural, distributive
and interactive justice may have a negative view of fairness (Folger & Cropanzano
1998). Consequently, when it is viewed to be unfair, annoyed parties (eg, subordinate) try
65
to determine the person responsible for the action or unjust event (i.e, the offender) and
his future intentions or motives. Therefore, accountability is crucial to the theory of
fairness because some people think that if there is any injustice, it is blamed to someone
(see Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). Accountability uses three core relative components
apply the fairness theory to performance appraisal purposefulness failure. First, negative
conditions or events (eg, performance appraisal purposefulness failure) that harms the
employee / ratee (e.g., impair self-esteem). Resultantly, at minimum, one event exists and
some parties are considered accountable for the occurrence of unwanted event. Secondly,
relative to particular event, perceptual violation of control on the action taken occurs (for
example, the supervisor may choose to handle the appraisal in various ways). The
employee perceives that the authorities are responsible for the actions they choose and
have some control on possible decisions for which they are held accountable. Third, the
actions in place were considered to disrupt the normative/ethical criteria (for example,
supervisor fails to explain the procedures adopted for distribution of rewards may
perceived to be violating the procedural justice laws).
Second, fundamental principles used to explain fairness theory is counterfactual thinking.
In short, the counterfactual idea is to compare possible scenarios and contrasting
philosophies (Roese, 1997). When using “counterfactual thinking”, cognitively one may
change some aspects of event and evaluate the consequences in that case (Roese & Olson
1995). Importantly, in 2001, Folger and Cropanzano argue that “counterfactual thinking”
assesses the action’s accountability (for example, failure of performance appraisal
purposes). When applying this to the failure of performance appraisal purposes events,
66
employees can think of different behaviors that are separated from what happened
actually, there are actions considered counter-factually. The employee is considering a
contrasting framework for this, explaining how things occure in different ways. For
example, an employee with the failure perception of performance appraisal may reflect: I
would be happier if the performance appraisal rewards were equally and fairly allocated”.
Therefore, in assessing accountability (and fairness), for the event, it is advisable for the
employee to perform three contrasting activities: could (rewards were allocated fairly),
what should be done (equally treated), and how to take an alternative action (feel good).
In addition, fairness theory points out that this counterfactual way of thinking triggers
subsequent feelings. The overall fairness is similar to that of the overall satisfaction
measure in the job satisfaction literature, which tends to consider overall satisfaction as a
more specific and satisfying outcome (eg, Bowring & Hammond, 2008; Ironson, Smith,
Brannick, Gibson & Paul, 1989). There are many potential benefits to adopting an overall
fairness measure. Perhaps most importantly, it explicitly captures the "unfair!" Violation
of the rules. Such violations of the rules include fairness, consistency, accuracy,
respectability, authenticity, and so on. It also allows scholars to confirm that this is a fair
or unjustified explanation of why overall justice predict key organizational outcomes.
Negative emotions such as anger usually occur if one concludes that the organization
should attribute unfair outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2000).
2.1.6 Facets of Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure
67
2.1.6.1 Administrative purposefulness failure:
Administrative purposes involve decisions such as managing employee’s salary, deciding
about promotion, whether to retain or terminate the employees, mechanism to recognize
the performance of individual, criteria for laying off employees, and lower job
performance. These are the most common purposes of performance appraisal, which
often focus on individual measurement. The focus is on distinguishing individuals
(Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). According to Denisi (1984), the assessments made
for administrative decision-making may lead the evaluators to seek trait-oriented
behavior and activate feature-oriented models, such as energetic workers. Matte (1982)
found in another study that evaluators who perform administrative decision evaluations
require more information than evaluators who evaluate feedback, although Matte did not
specifically examine the type of information sought. Many studies link the purpose of
performance appraisal with justice cognition (eg, Palaiologos, Papazekos, &
Panayotopoulou, 2011; Greenberg J., 1990; Erdogan, 2002; Jawahar, 2007; Youngcourt,
Leiva, & Jones, 2007), finds the all types of justice are related, but distributive justice has
a greater impact on individual-level results, such as administrative or evaluation
purposes.
2.1.6.2 Developmental purposefulness Failure
The second element of "within-individuals" has a development focus and is referred to in
the recent literature as a development goal (Iqbal, et al. 2014) and also as an individual
68
focus point of reasoning (Jawahar, 2007; Palaiologos, et al., 2011). The development
goals mainly include determining the individual's training needs, performance feedback,
determination of mobilization and distribution, and determination of individual strengths
and weaknesses. The focus of these goals is on improving employee capabilities and
personal development (Palaiologos, et al., 2011). The development goals of PA are
related to interactive justice, and employees' views on various performance evaluation
standards confirmed a positive relation with procedural justice. Evaluator’s feedback and
employee satisfaction is positively correlated with interactional justice (Palaiologos, et
al., 2011).
2.1.6.3 Strategic Purposefulness Failure:
Strategic purposes or system maintenance include personnel planning, identifying
organizational training needs, assessing goal achievement, evaluating personnel systems,
strengthening power, structure, and determining organizational development needs. The
research shows that strategic problems are considered the most important, because these
links have selected evaluation systems and business strategies to establish an objective,
mandatory, challenging, well-planned, value-added and structured system to measure the
performance of employees (Palaiologos, et al., 2011; Wright, 2004). Similarly, in the
recent review of the literature on the purposes of performance evaluation (Iqbal MZ,
2012), two key uses of the purpose of a performance assessment strategy are
demonstrated: through identification, Establish and achieve a useful relationship between
69
organizational goals and personal goals, and influence employee perceptions of the
organization’s important goals. Second, the strategic purpose of performance evaluation
is to guide managers to address legal issues such as anti-discrimination laws and provide
guidance for compliance of employment legality issues e.g. equal employment
opportunities.
In addition, the company's macro-strategic perspective, resource-based perspectives
(Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001; Barney, 1991) challenge traditional corporate
perspectives. This perspective explains the company's competitive advantage depends on
the value of resources, scarcity, hard to imitate and hard to substitute alternatives.
Therefore, according to the Burney’s viewpoint, HR (people) serves as keystone to
achieve the core competitiveness of the organization. As the firms are more intended to
invest heavily in human resource, which has compelled researchers to recognize
employees as sources of gaining the competitive edge in a turbulent business
environment (Barney et al., 2001; Barney, 1991), particularly those that attach great
importance and distinctiveness to the core competencies of the company (Lepak and
Snell, 1999). Effectively established performance appraisal mechanisms may distract
employees from concerns about fairness and fairness, as well as motivate individuals to
improve their performance levels (Mulvaney, McKinney & Grodsky, 2012).
Prior literature is evident that employees' sense of fairness and precision in the process of
performance appraisal are the result of the determination of assessment frequency goals,
70
and the supervisor’s knowledge of the performance appraisal process and subordinate
responsibilities (Landy et al., 1978, 1980). Similarly, if the literature focuses on
employee development and his performance improvement (Dipboye & Pontbriand,
1981), then the literature will obviously increase employee satisfaction and higher
assessment acceptance.
2.1.6.4 Role Definition Purposefulness Failure
The role definition purposefulness of performance evaluation, also called position-
focused (Jawahar, 2007; Cleveland, Murphy and Williams, 1989).Performance elements
include not only abilities and motivations but also individuals’ clear understanding of
what they expect. This social information is defined as a role definition that describes the
degree of openness of important role behavior within the context of organization by
finding work responsibilities that are not needed and assessment areas that need to exceed
current job requirements (Youngcourt, Leiva, Jones, 2007). This kind of performance
evaluation helps employees fully understand the inherent advantages and disadvantages
about the positions and roles performed by them (Law & Tam, 2008; Hanley & Nguyen,
2005). The purpose of the role definition is useful for the entire organization because the
information collected through the PA can show the increase or decrease in the number of
positions in the breadth of the role, indicating that more or less resources should be
allocated (Plaiologos et al., 2011). Therefore, performance evaluation decisions and
references to personal validity are also related to the effectiveness of the entire job
(DeNisi, 2000; Murphy & Cleveland, 1992). Existing research depicts that justice in the
71
procedures chosen for performance evaluation will encourage and motivate the ratees to
perform well, and if ratees indicate that the evaluation process is unjust / unfair, they will
reluctant to perform well (Kominis & Emmanuel , 2007).
2.1.7 Outcomes of Organizational Justice / Injustice:
Greenberg (2009) and Cropanzana et al. (2007) explored in one study the positive impact
of “procedural justice” and “interactional justice” on work outcomes. In contrast, Sulu et
al. (2010) examined the adverse relation in “procedural” and “distributive” injustice and
organizational commitment. In addition, it explores the inequitable distribution of staff
turnover intention (Hassan & Hashim, 2011). A recent study by Cheng (2014)
emphasizes that organizational justice is closely linked to performance appraisal. On the
other hand, Greenberg (2010) found that employees who were treated unfairly suffered
more physical and mental illness. However, this study tends to examine the impact of the
failure of performance appraisal goals on job performance and retaliation.
2.1.7.1 In-role Performance:
In-role performance is the traditional and essential aspect of overall work performance
(whole, 2012). Many types of researchers tried to define work performance nevertheless
it remain a confusion because each study defines work performance differently.
Currently, a meta-analysis on work performance displays that two important factors
constitute the work performance i.e. task/In-role performance and contextual/extra-role
performance (Koopmans, et al., 2011; Motowildo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). They were
72
the first to introduce the concepts of task and contextual performance. However, the
terms are also denoted as In-role and extra-role performance respectively.
Katz & Kahn, (1978) explained in role behaviors as the formal part of an individual’s job
and are normally accepted under the prescribed reward system of his organization. As in-
role performance is a fundamental obligation or promise that one makes with his
employer, workers might decide not to fulfil the in-role performance while they believe
that their organization cannot comply with its obligations in response (Zhao, Wayne,
Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). It refers to formally compulsory outcomes and behaviors
which serve the organizational goals directly (Taris, 2006), or in other words, “the
formally prescribed job responsibilities” (Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003).
Prior research shows a large number of factors influencing work performance, which
necessitate the organizations to use different strategies and practices to consider these
effects (William, 2001), from which performance appraisal system acts as an important
factor (whole, 2012). Considering the impact of justice on employee performance (in
roles and additional roles), existing researches have clearly shown the influence of justice
on the behavior of the organization, including the role-behavior (Brockner & Wiesenfeld,
1996; Greenberg, 1987; Adams, 1965) and the perspectives of the roles of employees
demonstrated in the workplace (Organ & Moorman, 1993). The findings of the study
testing the impact of “procedural justice” on the “employee performance” are mixed, as
Konovsky & Cropanzano, in (1991) has showed positive influences and Kanfer et al.,
(1987) showed negative influences.
73
2.1.7.2 Retaliation:
Retaliation is defined as a behavior in reaction to perceived organizational injustice,
which is proposed to punish the other party perceived as the cause of injustice (Skarlicki
& Folger, 1997). Initially, The Folger and Bies (1989) established the relationship
between perceived organizational injustice with organizational retaliatory behavior while
observing the codes of procedures, due processes, and dignity, which are inserted in legal
doings in the main institutes of all cultured civilizations. They further argued that
employee knowhow of these rules will enforce executives to follow such principles
sincerely, whereas a failure to ensure these will foster the forceful and annoyed responses
from the workers (Folger & Bies, 1989). Previous research has verified that justice
perceptions result in improved positive attitude and behavior of employee, like
“organizational citizenship behaviors” (Skarlicki & Latham 1996, 1997) and
“organizational commitment” (Folger & Konovsky 1989) however, alternatively the
injustice feelings will cause increased turnover of employees (Dailey & Kirk, 1992) and a
display of retaliatory behavior at workplace, for instance the negative responses may
involve intentions to theft, increased absenteeism, intentional inactivity, vandalism
(Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).
The focus of this research is on the factors that influence employees' perceptions of
fairness about their performance evaluation. More specifically, we believe that employees
have a strong influence on their sense of fairness, which is related to moral and immoral
behavior (Spector and Fox, 2002; Fox et al., 2001). Numerous reasons can be discussed
74
to support this. First, the concept of justice is related to moral and immoral work forms
(Cropanzano and Stein, 2009). For example, Organ and Ryan (1995) in their meta-
analysis on citizenship reported that various justice facets like distributive, procedural,
and overall have a significant and positive relationship with to citizenship behavior.
Similarly, Skarlicki and his colleague pointed out that supervisor's unfair practices (unfair
procedures and unfair interpersonal behavior) can motivate employees to take aggregate
retaliatory actions in an attempt to punish those who are responsible for unfair conditions
and restore justice. (Skarlicki et al., 1999; Skarlicki & Folger 1997). This "revenge on the
organization" (Bidder et al., 2001) is an unethical act designed to deliberately destroy an
organization.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
2.1.8 Administrative purposefulness failure and In-role Performance and
Retaliation:
Administrative purposes are also referred to as among individuals (wage management,
promotion decisions, retention or termination, recognition of individual performance,
dismissal, and determination of bad results). The PA rating helps managers to determine
whether individual needs to promote personal potential (Milliman et al. 2002). The result
of performance appraisal and evaluation of employees' performance level are important
factors that determine employee compensation, promotion, and layoffs (Kondrasuk et al.,
2008; Youngcourt et al., 2007). These scores have also become an important part of the
employee performance record as a legal document to prove the employee's decision to
75
terminate when needed (Mathis & Jackson, 2012). Administrative decision-making may
lead to increased wages, bonuses and promotions, which are often the result of staffing.
Earlier researches explored that compensation decisions based on performance is related
to greater degree of “overall (job) satisfaction” (for example, see Green & Heywood,
2008; Heywood & Wei, 2006). Bryson et al. (2012) in a recent research has empirically
examined piece-rate wages, based on the relation in team incentives / profit sharing plans
and job satisfaction, and showed workers under the PRP plan to work and control wage
levels. Although the evaluation has benefits and is helpful as a tool to manage the
workplace (Walsh, 2003), there is a problem that distort its practicality. Problems in the
assessment hinder their effectiveness in the workplace and sometimes affect the attitudes,
reactions, behaviors and performance of the staff in the workplace. As some researchers
point out, performance evaluation systems are ineffective, if raters do not accept them
(Carroll & Schneier, 1982; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). They are generally more
satisfied with the degree of acceptance or satisfaction with job evaluations. In other
words, lack of satisfaction with the assessment, staff not accepting assessments, or unfair
or inaccurate assessments may lead to dissatisfaction with the overall work because the
assessment results are unlikely.
Organizational Justice theory refers to the perceived fairness of administrative purposes,
typically include the fair allocation of pay, benefits and rewards (Adams 1965; Leventhal
1976). Greenberg’s (1993) measured the effects of justice theory on performance
appraisal through its taxonomy of justice perception, he explained that if employee
perceived an injustice in the outcomes of administrative purposes, he may perceives
76
injustice based on some systemic (structural / procedural); informational (social /
procedural); configural (structural / distributive); and interpersonal (social / distributive).
The systematic justice (structure / procedure) is based primarily on the procedural justice
model of Leventhal (1980) and focuses on the perceptual aspects of appraisal process
(allocating appraisers, standards setting, collecting the relevant information, and knowing
the appeal process). Procedural fairness is assessed based on whether they promote
accuracy, suppress prejudice, represent the concerns of recipients and whether they can
be corrected and applied consistently. The configural justice considers the norms of
equity (e.g. a social comparison of administrative outcomes) and politics, favoritism etc.
Performance judgments (structures) based on the quality of work performed by
employees are considered fair in relevance to defined performance criteria (systematic),
on the basis of fairness criteria used in context of appraisal practices (Leventhal, 1980).
The performance appraisal’s social dimension are expressed in terms of interpersonal and
Information justice concept. The way in which appraisers evaluate the employee, whether
gives respect and shows concern for him / her, the perception of interpersonal justice
(social distribution). Information justice (social process) reflects a sense of fairness by
explaining the performance requirements and criteria, received feedback, and explanation
the reasons for the decision. Full explanation (information) Clarified performance
expectations or ratings are considered as based on fairness interactional / social part.
Performance appraisal purposefulness failure can arise when it does not meet one's
perception of the rating that he or she deserves. This difference leads to the global
assessment that the assessment is inaccurate, unfair or a combination of the two. This
77
dissatisfaction may be focused on the performance appraisal itself, but it may also be
related to the employee performance appraisal system and its supervisor.
According to “Fairness theory” given by Folger and Cropanzano in (1998) the
administrative purposefulness failure experiences, using accountability and
counterfactual thinking on basis of “could” “should” and “would” considerations to
evaluate whether moral standards have been violated in the unjust event. The theory is
that when an event occurs (and should happen) at different times, the individual will
blame the authority for the power of the event, and the satisfaction level will be better if
the alternative is brought into play. But if no better alternative is available, fairness
theory’s counterfactual thinking triggers subsequent negative feelings. Negative emotions
such as anger usually occur if one concludes that the organization should attribute unfair
outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2000).
Therefore, on the basis of theory and literature, it is expected that perceived failure of
administrative purposes would have a significant and negative impact on in-role
performance while a significant and positive impact on retaliation.
Hypothesis 1(a):
Perceived administrative purposes failure is negatively related to in-role performance.
Hypothesis 1(b):
Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively related to Retaliation.
78
2.1.9 Developmental Purposefulness failure and In-role performance and
Retaliation:
The purpose of development is also referred to as within-individual (identifying
individual training needs, feedback on performance, transfer and distribution, and
determination of personal strengthens and weakness). Developing the individual’s career
through the appropriate training and development programs is considered as an essential
part of organization’s practices about human resource management (Yew, 2011; Dardar,
Jusoh, & Rasli, 2012). Kuvaas in (2007) found while the relation among developmental
purposefulness and feedback to regulate the self-reported performance by increasing
employees’ internal motivation level. The employee responses to feedback depend on a
set of cognitive variables that in turn predict performance (Kinicki, Prussia, Wu and
McKee-Ryan, 2004). As research shows that, the relationship between the feedback
environment and the behavior (situation) of organizational citizenship is partially
restricted by emotional commitment (Norris-Watts and Levy, 2004).
Greenberg’s (1993) taxonomy of justice perception explains that employee forms the
justice or injustice perceptions on the basis of “systemic” measuring the (structural /
procedural); “informational” concerning the (social / procedural); “configural”
perspective discussing the (structural / distributive); and “interpersonal” aspect referring
the (social / distributive). The systematic justice (structure-procedure) uses the
Leventhal’s (1980) model to explain the underlying justice mechanism about
performance appraisal process (assigning appraisers, setting standards, collecting
information, and appealing for appeals). The justice evaluation for the above appraisal
79
procedures to determine the failure of developmental purposes is assessed considering
whether they promote accuracy, suppress prejudice, represent the concerns of recipients
and whether they can be corrected and applied consistently. If performance appraisal
purposes does not meet the perceptual criteria, the rater perceive a failure of performance
appraisal purposefulness. Next the configural justice evaluates the justice using the equity
norms (e.g. a social comparison of administrative outcomes) and politics, favoritism etc.
Performance judgments (structures) forms fairness lying upon the quality of performed
work by employees on the basis of defined performance criteria (systematic), in
performance appraisal context (Leventhal, 1980). The social dimension of performance
evaluation could be expressed in terms of interpersonal and information justice concept.
The way in which appraisers evaluate the appraisee, e.g. shows concern or gives respect,
the perception of interpersonal justice (social distribution). Information justice (social
process) reflects a sense of fairness based on the explanations of performance targets and
criterions, mechanism of feedback, and clarification of reasons for the decision.
Performance appraisal purposefulness failure occurs when the developmental
performance appraisal purposes does not meet one's perceived expectations of the rating
that he or she deserves. This difference leads to the global assessment that the assessment
is inaccurate, unfair or a combination of the two. This dissatisfaction may be focused on
the performance appraisal itself, but it may also be related to the employee performance
appraisal system and its supervisor.
80
Folger and Cropanzano, (1998), fairness theory explains that accountability and
counterfactual thinking are basic mechanism to explain the administrative purposefulness
failure experiences on basis of “could” “should” and “would” considerations to evaluate
whether moral standards have been violated in the unjust event or not. The theory is that
when an event occurs (and should happen) at different times, the individual will blame
the authority for the power of the event, and the satisfaction level will be better if the
alternative is brought into play. But if no better alternative is available, fairness theory’s
counterfactual thinking triggers subsequent negative feelings. Negative emotions such as
anger usually occur if one concludes that the organization should attribute unfair
outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2000). Therefore, in the light of the theory and relevant
literature, it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2(a):
Perceived development purposes failure is negatively related to in-role performance.
Hypothesis 2(b):
Perceived development purposes failure is positively related to Retaliation.
81
2.1.10 Strategic Purposes Failure and In-role Performance and Retaliation
Strategic purposes serves for system maintenance (staff planning, organizational training
needs assessment, goal achievement assessment, staffing systems evaluation,
reinforcement of authority structure and identification of organizational development
needs); The emphasis is on identifying the potential and planning opportunities and
direction of employee growth (Mathis and Jackson, 2011). Abu-Doleh, J. and Weir, D.
(2007) Performance management systems are used "to manage and align" all the
resources of the organization (like “physical”, “human”, “technical” and “informational”)
to achieve the maximum possible performance. Seiden and Sowa (2011) argued "the
ultimate goal of a performance management process is to reconcile individual
performance with organizational performance, which should inform employees about the
organization's objectives, Priorities, and expectations, and how well they contribute”. In
the PA process, this signaling occurs at the beginning of the PA process when the
supervisors draw up individual performance goals with their team members oriented
toward broader organizational goals are then monitored throughout the year as the
supervisory authorities provide feedback to their employees to know whether their
performance meets the organizational requirements or not. This target-oriented process is
a strong driver for a result-oriented culture and is seen as one of the main advantages of
the PA process (Grote, 2000). According to Cascio & Aguinis, (2005), a properly
designed PMS (performance management system) find the results and behaviors
necessary to carry out the strategic priorities of the organization and maximize the extent
to which employees exhibit the desired behaviors and produce the expected results. In
82
addition, according to a study by Mohram et al. (1991) as cited in Herreid, (2006), the
key features to ensure an effective evaluation of performance are 1) “flexibility” in the
relation with the changes that occur in the specific organizational context, and 2) its
alignment with vision and core objectives of the company. It is perceived that it is
fundamental to take advantage of human capital in a desired direction (Takeuchi et al,
2007; Delery and Doty, 1996). Research shows that employee feelings of justice in
performance appraisal processes and accuracy is a result of the appraisal frequency goal
identification, and the knowledge of supervisor about performance appraisal process and
the duties of subordinate (Landy et al. 1978, 1980). Similarly, literature is evident of
greater employee’s performance and larger appraisal acceptance if it is largely
emphasized on development of employee and his performance improvement (Dipboye &
Pontbriand 1981). Effectively establishing a performance appraisal mechanism can
distract employees from fair and equitable concerns and motivate employees to improve
performance (Mulvaney, McKinney, & Grodsky, 2012).
The fundamental assumptions of organizational justice theory can be explained through
Greenberg’s (1993) taxonomy comprised on c can be explained through the procedural
justice model of Leventhal (1980), that evaluates the performance appraisal process
(assigning assessors, setting standards, collecting information, and appealing for appeals)
based on Procedural fairness perceptions about whether to promote accuracy, suppress
prejudice, represent the concerns of recipients and whether they can be corrected and
applied consistently. The model examines the configural justice through the norms of
equity (e.g. a social comparison of strategic outcomes) and politics, favoritism etc.
83
Performance judgments (structures) analyze the quality of work performed by employees
using the fairness in defined performance criteria (systematic), in context of performance
appraisal (Leventhal, 1980). The performance appraisal’s perception of interpersonal
justice (social distribution) explains the way in which appraisers evaluate the appraisee,
whether in a respectful and caring manner. Information justice (social process) reflects a
sense of fairness based on clarifying the performance criteria and standards, feedback
and descriptions of details of decision. Full explanation (information) Performance
appraisal strategic purposefulness failure can arise in case of lack in any one of above
criteria suppose the unequal outcome of performance appraisal strategic intent or the
performance appraisals are not perceived to aligned with mission and vision of the
company or there is a lesser flexibility in strategies. Such lacks or difference in
evaluation criteria may harm employee justice perceptions and its consequences.
Similarly, Fairness theory of Folger and Cropanzano, (1998) explains the administrative
purposefulness failure experiences using accountability and counterfactual thinking on
basis of “could” “should” and “would” considerations to evaluate whether moral
standards have been violated in the unjust event. The theory explains that at the
occurrence of an event (and should happen) at different times, the individual will blame
the authority for the power of the event, and the satisfaction level will be better if the
alternative is brought. But if no better alternative is available, fairness theory’s
counterfactual thinking triggers subsequent negative feelings or injustice. Negative
emotions such as anger usually occur if one concludes that the organization should
attribute unfair outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2000). Therefore, on the basis of theory and
84
literature, it is expected that perceived failure of strategic purposes would have a
significant and negative impact on in-role performance while a significant and positive
impact on retaliation.
Hypothesis 3(a):
Perceived strategic purposes failure is negatively related to in-role performance.
Hypothesis 3(b):
Perceived strategic purposes failure is positively related to Retaliation.
2.1.11 Role Definition Purposefulness failure and In-role performance and
Retaliation:
Role definition describes the (criteria for validation research, documentation of staff
decisions and compliance with legal requirements). Because performance appraisal for
role definition gives the explanation and clarification of roles, we assume that during the
performance appraisal for this purpose, individuals will lesser role ambiguity. Therefore,
by definition, if one considers the assessment at least partially for the clarification of the
role, his or her expectations of the job may not be less obscure. We also think that the
purpose of evaluation is seen as being more satisfied with the performance appraisal of
individuals who have clarified roles and thus showing a higher performance at work.
Spector (1986) used meta-analysis to find that a high level of perceptive control was
positively correlated with job satisfaction. Feedback discussions after the performance
appraisal may be a good time for employees to actively participate in the job definition or
85
to give employees a feel for the performance evaluation process and work. Although the
sound and actual control of the process may not be real, the evaluation helps to clarify the
role of awareness is the key to these emotional reactions. Therefore, it is expected that the
purpose of performance appraisal services in the definition of roles is negatively related
to the improvement of role performance and retaliation. but if there is a lesser job
clarity, and employees are asked to perform complex jobs will cause a failure to role
definition purposes of performance appraisal which resultantly influence the
organizational outcomes. Such as Greenberg’s taxonomy of justice, perception
explains that employee forms the justice perception about the failure of performance
appraisal based on c If strategic purposes of performance appraisal fails to meet the
criteria of anyone of these perceptual process, the employee will resultant perceives
injustice and such injustice may lead to negative organizational outcomes (Colquitt,
2012). In addition the fairness theory stress on the formation of global perceptions of
performance appraisal failure using accountability and counterfactual thinking
mechanism. The theory evaluates the justice or injustice perceptions on the basis of
could, should and would criteria. According to Greenberg and Colquitt (2015), the
fairness theory explains the way when an authority is held responsible for the action
taken. The theory claims that the blame will be in placed in response to three
counterfactual considerations should, could and would. The theory proposed that at the
occurrence of event such as role definition failure of performance appraisal “should
happen” at different times, the individual will blame the authority for not taking the other
feasible actions “could”, and next the concern about whether the decision violates the
86
moral and ethical standards “would”. Negative emotions such as anger usually occur if
one concludes that the organization should attribute unfair outcomes (Cropanzano et al.,
2000). So the role definition purposes failure is negatively related with in-role
performance and positively with Retaliation.
Hypothesis 4(a):
Perceived role definition purposes failure is negatively related to in-role performance and
positively to Retaliation.
Hypothesis 4(b):
Perceived role definition purposes failure is positively related to Retaliation.
2.1.12 Administrative purposes failure and Injustice Perception:
Administrative purposes involve decisions such as fixation of salary, promotions
mechanism, retention/termination, individual’s performance recognition, dismissals, and
handling the poor performers. These are the most common purposes of performance
appraisal, which often focus on individual measurement. The focus is on distinguishing
individuals (Youngcourt, Leiva, &Jones, 2007). According to Denisi (1984), the
assessments made for administrative decision-making may lead the evaluators to seek
trait-oriented behavior and activate feature-oriented models, such as energetic workers.
Matte (1982) found in another study that evaluators who perform administrative decision
evaluations require more information than evaluators who evaluate feedback, although
Matte did not specifically examine the type of information sought. Many studies link the
87
purpose of performance appraisal with perceptions of justice (eg, Palaiologos, et al.,
2011; Jawahar, 2007; Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; Erdogan, 2002; Greenberg J.,
1990), confirmed the relationship between all types of justice, but greater impacts of
distributive justice on individual-level results, such as administrative or evaluation
purposes. The research depicted that evaluations of development performance are less
biased as compared to administrative purposefulness of performance appraisal (Meyer et
al., 1965). In addition, unfairness in the administrative results of performance appraisal,
such as unequal payments, division of work, interactions, and judgments and assessments
can hurt nurses' opinions and experience (Afzali, et al., 2017). The link can also be
explained with the help of Greenberg’s taxonomy of organizational justice in
performance appraisal, as model divide the performance appraisal’s structural and social
parts on the basis of different types of justice and explained that the individuals evaluates
the justice while enters in structural or social perspective performance appraisal. If
employee fails to perceive justice from any one of the performance appraisal aspects, the
injustice perceptions may enhance. There is a bulk of research to explain the application
of systemic (structural / procedural); informational (social / procedural); configural
(structural / distributive); and interpersonal (social / distributive) in the context of
performance appraisal injustice. For example, employee may perceive the rater to fulfil
the equality, need and social status norms but the rating may not be congruent with the
equity norms so the administrative failure may occur, which consequently leads to
injustice. Moreover, raters personal goals may also leads to injustice perception. For
instance, the performance appraisal may be perceived unfair if rater is perceived to inflate
88
the ratings to avoid conflicts, for political reasons or to favoritism (Longnecker, et al.,
1987). Social justice of performance appraisal might be explained based on respect and
sensitivity aspects of justice (Beis & Moag, 1986). Greenberg (1993) empirically
examined that employees are extremely affected the sensitivity exercised by appraisers
and other superiors and peers in the organization. For instance the rater’s concern for the
ratee’s performance, .apologies and further regret expressions mitigates the unfairness
perceptions of employees but the absence of these elements may enhance the overall
injustice perceptions rate may combine the justice dimensions to form a global perception
of injustice (Colquitt, 2012). Similarly Greenberg and Colquitt, (2005) explained that
overall justice or injustice might be conceptualized using the fairness theory. It explains
the injustice perception using accountability and counterfactual thinking e.g. should,
would and could evaluations in response to perceived problems in administrative
purposes of performance appraisal. So both in the light of theory and literature it is
assumed:
Hypothesis 5 (a):
Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice
perceptions.
2.1.13 Developmental purposes Failure and Injustice Perception:
89
The second element of "within-individuals" has a development focus and has been
referred to in the recent literature as a developmental purposes (Iqbal, et al. 2014;
Jawahar, 2007; Palaiologos, et al.,, 2011), The development goals mainly include the
determination of individual’s needs for training, feedback for performance, allocating
transfer and tasks, and determination of strengthens and weaknesses of individuals. The
focus of these goals is on improving staff capabilities and personal development
(Palaiologos, et al., 2011).
The preceding researches depicts that although development performance is closely
related to administrative purposes of performance appraisal, these purposes are
emphasized in different organizations and differ from organizational characteristics
(Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989). The developmental evaluation is related to the
improvement of individual’s performance and, often, it is unstable within the formal
organizational system (McDowall & Fletcher, 2004). However, it is frequently accesses
the diverse resources of the organization, such as educational and training opportunities.
Previous studies have demonstrated that there is a significant relationship between the
purpose of performance appraisal and the sense of justice, as procedural justice is
strengthened by adhering to "due process" standards including lack of prejudice,
consistency and accuracy (Leventhal, Karuza & Fry, 1980). The Greenberg’s taxonomy
of organizational justice explains the performance appraisal from structural and social
domains. In structural part, he discussed the configural justice, which is based on
perceived distribution of rewards / outcomes and systematic justice is based on
Leventhal’s principles of procedural justice. Research shows that employee do more care
90
of justice for the administrative purposes of performance appraisal rather than
developmental purposes (Palaiologos et al., 2011). However systematic (structural-
procеdural) justice is more important for the developmental purposes like promotions,
transfers, trainings etc., the social justice is based on the supervisor’s treatment
considering respect and sensitivity principles, how much supervisor is sensitive for the
outcomes rate received for developmental purposes of performance appraisal and whether
the right information is provided to the ratee at right time. (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005;
Colquitt, 2012) argued that individual combines the justice / injustice perceptions to
consider and overall effect on the performance ratings. Greenberg and Colquitt, (2005)
referred to use of fairness theory to explain the underlying mechanisms regarding the
justice / injustice perceptions and argued that the employees their justice information at
the first encounter, irrespective of considering its nature as procedural, distributive,
interpersonal, or informational. The fairness theory evaluates the justice perception about
event by determining the accountability of injustice perception and blame someone to
either supervisor or organization and secondly the counterfactual thinking are important.
So at the failure of developmental purposes the individual may perceive and injustice
perception. So the thеory and literature suggests that
Hypothesis 5(b):
Perceived development purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice
perceptions.
91
2.1.14 Strategic Purposes Failure and Injustice Perception:
Strategic purposefulness also called “system maintenance” includes personnel planning,
identifying organizational training needs, assessing goal achievement, evaluating
personnel systems, strengthening power, structure, and determining organizational
development needs. The research shows that the strategic problems are considered the
utmost essential, as such purposes clarifies the need of evaluation systems and helps to
form strategies that are necessary to launch an unbiased, compulsory, challenging,
effectively planned, valued and organized system aimed to evaluate the employees’
performance (Palaiologos, et al., 2011; Wright, 2004) Similarly, in the contemporary
research on the purpose of performance evaluation (Iqbal MZ, 2012), two key uses of the
purpose of a performance assessment strategy are demonstrated: through identification,
Establish and achieve a useful relationship between organizational goals and personal
goals, and influence employee perceptions of the organization’s important goals. Second,
the strategic purpose of performance evaluation is to guide managers to address legal
issues such as anti-discrimination laws and facilitate them to ensure the compliance of
employment laws like equal employment opportunities.
In addition, the organization's resource-based view (Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001;
Barney, 1991) confronted traditional company views from strategic perspective on macro
level. This view holds that the company's competitive advantage depends on the value of
92
resources, scarcity, hard to imitate and hard to substitute alternatives. Effectively
establishing a performance appraisal system can divert employees' attention to fairness
and fairness and motivate employees to improve performance (Mulvaney, McKinney, &
Grodsky, 2012).
Research shows that employees' justice perceptions and accuracy in the process of
performance appraisal are the result of the determination of assessment frequency goals,
and the supervisor’s knowledge of the performance appraisal process and subordinate
responsibilities (Landy et al., 1978, 1980). Similarly, if the literature focuses on
employee development and his performance improvement (Dipboye & Pontbriand,
1981), then the literature will obviously increase employee satisfaction and higher
assessment acceptance. As research shows that strategic purposes are related to employee
justice perceptions so a failure in achievement of strategic purposes of performance
appraisal will lead toward injustice.
The Greenberg’s model of justice perception is important to explain the relationship in
variables under observation. The model explains the structural and social components of
performance appraisal in relation to different dimensions of organizational justice. The
first type is systematic-procedural that explains the justice perceptions based on
Leventhal (1980) criteria for rater selection, set the performance appraisal criteria, getting
the PA information, and pursuing the appeals. Research shows the unfair perception are
developed based on biasness, incorrect appraisals, not representative of rater’s
performance and inconsistency of outcomes (see. Greenberg, 1993). For the configural
justice the ratees build injustice perception at the failure of strategic performance
93
appraisal purposes considering the PA norms (equity, equality, need and status) and
raters’ personal objectives (inflate ratings, political pressures or favourtisim). Thе social
domain explains the formation of injustice perception based on supervisor’s sensitivity
towards employee and the level of respect shown in appraisal treatment. The
informational-social justice / injustice might necessitate the provision of performance
related information to the employee and should have a voice. If performance appraisal is
not perceive strategically accurate, from all of above discussed perspective there may be
an injustice perception. As Colquitt, (2015) explained that overall justice perceptions
represent all events in aggregation. Similarly fairness theory postulates the relationship
on the basis of accountability (as it determines when an authority should held accountable
for injustice) and counterfactual thinking on the basis of three criteria, should, could, and
would. The “should “the situation may be better if other outcomes were opted. “Could”
thinking involved the authority have selected the alternative feasible method and “would”
is the moral and ethical evaluation of decision. After evaluating the strategic purposes of
performance appraisal through fairness theory, an individual forms the injustice
perceptions. In addition to the literature support, the theory can also be used to build the
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 5(c):
Perceived strategic purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice perceptions.
2.1.15 Role Definition Purposes Failure and Injustice Perception:
94
The purpose of the role definition is also known as position focusing (Cleveland,
Murphy, & Williams, 1989; Jawahar, 2007). Performance elements include not only
abilities and motivations but also individuals’ clear understanding of what they expect.
This social information is defined as a role definition that describes the degree of
openness of important role behavior in organizational settings by identifying work tasks
that are no longer needed and areas of assessment that need to exceed current job
requirements (Youngcourt, Leiva, Jones, 2007). This kind of performance evaluation
helps employees fully understand the inherent advantages and disadvantages of their
positions and roles (Hanley & Nguyen, 2005; Law & Tam, 2008). Role-defining goals
are useful for the entire organization because the information collected through the PA
can show an increase or decrease in the number of jobs in the breadth of the role,
indicating that more or fewer resources should be allocated (Plaiologos et al., 2011).
Therefore, performance evaluation decisions and references to personal validity are also
related to the effectiveness of the entire job (DeNisi, 2000; Murphy & Cleveland, 1992).
Studies have shown that the fairness of the performance evaluation process drives interest
rates to perform well. If interest rates consider the process of performance evaluation to
be unfair (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007), they will not show good performance.
Therefore, this argument shows that this study assumes that there is a significant
relationship between the failure of the definition of purpose and the perception of
injustice for the entire organization. The information collected through the PA can show
how different roles increase or decrease in breadth, indicating that more or less resources
should be allocated (Plaiologos et al., 2011). Therefore, the performance evaluation
95
decisions and their references to the individual's in-service effectiveness are also related
to the effectiveness of the entire job (DeNisi, 2000; Murphy & Cleveland, 1992).
The taxonomy of justice perception applied by Greenberg (1993) in the context of
performance appraisal assumes that the justice perceptions are formed using structural
and social domain of performance appraisal in relation to all four types of organizational
justice. The theory postulates that the structural and configural justice follows the basic
principles of procedural (Leventhal’s criteria) and distributive criteria (equity, and
personal goals of rater). Whereas interpersonal and informational justice assumptions are
were used to explain the social perspective of performance appraisal. As the previous
literature shows that role definition purposes failure occurs if the performance appraisal
lacks to allocate or communicate the job roles to the employee. Collins, in (2000)
established that role ambiguity and performance are negatively correlated, which has a
high degree of task interdependence and independence over task-relatedness. When the
role ambiguity is high, there is enough space to explain the job requirements, causing
similar sets of people to show different standards, resulting in a decrease in performance
(Sluss et al., 2011; Burney & Widener, 2007; Yun, Takeuchi & Liu, 2007). When the
ratee perceives injustice regarding the role definition purposes, he may form the injustice
perceptions of performance appraisal in aggregation to all justice types and events
(Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Fairness theory is a second framework used to explain the
hypothesis as role definition purposefulness failure will triggers the individual to held
accountable the supervisor or organization entering in three counterfactual thinking
should could and would. These thinking evaluates the causes of failure and provides the
96
justice relevant explanation of failure to form the overall injustice perception. The
fairness theory is consistent with the Colquitt’s (2012) latent model of justice that
considers all dimensions of justice in an integrative manner to form the justice
perceptions. So lying upon this argument there is a significant positive relationship
between role definition purposes failure and injustice perception
Hypothesis 5(d):
Perceived role definition purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice
perceptions.
2.1.16 Injustice perception and in-role Performance and Retaliation
Organizational injustice rises stress at workplace and influences psychometric, physical,
and behavioral responses of employees (Elovainio et al., 2002). Previous studies have
revealed that extent of uncertainty or poor access on control and adverse changes not only
influences the perceptions of employees about what they think is fair, but also affects
their response to fairness (Lind, 2001; van den Bos, 2001).. The previous research shows
that justice / injustice perceptions are positively / negatively related with important
organizational attitudes and behaviors comprising organizational commitment,
citizenship behavior, trust in management counterproductive work behavior, and task
performance (Colquitt, 2012; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). The
current study suggests whether the overall sense of injustice becomes stronger when the
situation is considered unjust (ie when working hours are low or when people think
changes in work are mainly negative) and a stronger predictor of retaliation.
97
Based on Greenberg’s (1993) taxonomy of justice perception, research suggests that
when the employees opinion towards the structural and social impacts on performance
appraisal decisions and procedures is positive there will be a fairness perception, and in
repose employee will display positive attitudes toward the appraisals and its
purposefulness. However, problems or perceived failure in achieving performances
appraisal purposefulness failure will increase the individual’s frustration and
dissatisfaction among employees for the performances appraisal system, supervisor, and
appraisal outcomes (Thurston, 2001). Fairness theory also suggests that in response to
overall injustice perceptions employee may display the negative behaviors and attitudes
(Colquitt, 2012; Colquitt, 2015)
For the above reasons, we assume:
Hypothesis 6(a):
Overall Injustice has a negative relationship with in-role performance.
Hypothesis 6(b):
Overall Injustice has a positive relationship with retaliation.
2.1.17 Overall injustice perception as a mediator:
Bulk of literature on organizational justice theory offers a theoretical framework for
conceptualizing the justice perceptions of employees about appraisal system (Greenberg,
2004; Cropanzano & Folger, 1996; Greenberg, 1986; Dipboye & dePontbraind, 1981).
This study inclined to examine that the employee draw injustice understandings from
98
fair/unfair perception about resource allocation comparative to other employees in
organizations. The organizations are supposed to successfully achieve performance
appraisal objectives (i.e. administrative, developmental, strategic, and role definition) and
In performance appraisal context, A well working appraisal system is an outcome of
efficient work, thoughtful, and intellectual planning; particularly used in combination
when the administrative, developmental, and strategic requirements of the firm are
anticipated (Caruth & Humphreys, 2008). Usually, the organizational justice theory
considers injustice as a key stressor and emotive tiredness, specifically, is one from the
maximum proximate responses to the apparent lack of justice (Cole, Bernerth, Walter, &
Holt, 2010).
Previous research also inclined to examine justice as a mediator among different attitudes
and behaviors such as such as Clercq, Haq, & Azeem, (2018) tested Employees'
informational unfairness beliefs as mediator between dispositional envy and job
performance. The procedural justice examined as mediator between “promotion
decision”, “commitment” and “intention to leave” through SEM (structural equation
modeling) using a sample of (156 managers and executives) in two subsidiaries of
international chemical firm (Bagdadli, Roberson & Paoletti, 2006). The results depict that
“promotion decisions” influence the feelings of organizational commitment through
perceptions of procedural justice in promotion decision-making processes. Saad and
Elshaer, (2017) argued that lower distributive justice of performance appraisal mediates
the negative relationship between organizational politics and validity of layoff decisions.
99
Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001) tested the distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice as a mediator using 190 studies as a sample, comprising of 64,757 participants and
establish the difference between three types of justice among organizational outcomes,
organizational practices and perceiver characteristics and performance, extra role
behavior, counterproductive work behavior, attitudes, and behaviors. The results showed
Job performance and counterproductive work behaviors measured as consequences of
perceived justice, were mainly related to procedural justice while distributive and
procedural justice predicts the organizational citizenship behavior. Kim and Kim (2013)
found a partial mediation between procedural justice between transformational leadership
and organizational emotional commitment in a sample of full-time employees in local
government in South Korea. Gillet, Fouquereau and Bonnaud-Antignac (2013) studied
distributive justice and interactive justice by cross-sectionalizing a sample of 343 nurses
from 47 different units in France to fully mediate the link between transformational
leadership and participants' quality of life. Although different dimensions of justice have
proved to be useful, researchers have recently pointed out the value of looking at the
overall judgments brought about by employee summative work experience (Ambrose &
Schminke, 2009; Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Colquitt, 2012; Rupp, 2011). Therefore,
employees can integrate different types of judicial information into the overall judicial
decision, and use early judicial information to replace and assist in interpreting later
judicial information, regardless of whether the previous information involves procedural,
distributive or interactive aspects (Proudfoot & Lind , 2015; van den Bos, 2015) or from
different sources of justice (Rupp, 2011). According to Colquitt (2012), the concept of
100
overall justice has theoretical and empirical advantages because it “clearly captures the
employee's 'unfair!' response.” Therefore, in this study we consider an integrated
perspective of perceived organizational justice / injustice to judge the employee’s justice /
injustice perceptions for this study. According to the Greenberg taxonomy of justice
perceptions the different taxonomies (e.g. structural-procedural, structural-configural,
social-procedural and informational) evaluates the employee perceptions on the basis of
various justice criteria including equity perceptions and rater’s personal objectives are
used to evaluate the configural justice, Leventhal’s (1980) criteria for procedural justice
is used to form the structural procedural justice. For the social justice sensitivity and
respect is used informational perspective explains the performance appraisal failure based
on low voice / participation in the performance appraisal process. Bulk of research shows
the evidence of negative justice perceptions in response to inappropriate performance
appraisal (that fails to meet its purposes) and according to Greenberg and Colquitt,
(2005), and Colquitt, (2015; 2012) such injustice perceptions may lead to negative
organizational outcomes (e.g. lower in-role performance and retaliation for this study).
Fairness theory by Folger and Cropanzano, also supports the assumption of holding the
accountable to supervisor or organization in repose to the occurrence of an unjust event
and this event is further evaluated on should, could and would counterfactuals. In these
counterfactual, the employee considers forms the injustice perceptions, which may
eventually leads negative organizational outcomes (Colquitt, 2012; 2015). On the basis of
above literature and theory, it is suggested that overall injustice serves as mediator in
performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation. As
101
a mediator in performance appraisal, there are relatively few studies trying to examine the
sense of injustice. However, no previous attempt has been made to discuss the concept of
justice as a mediator between the failure of performance appraisal, job performance and
retaliation.
Hypothesis 7(a):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived administrative
purposes failure and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 7(b):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation between perceived administrative
purposes failure and retaliation
Hypothesis 8(a):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived development
purposes failure and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 8(b):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation between perceived development
purposes failure and retaliation.
Hypothesis 9(a):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived strategic purposes
failure and in-role performance and retaliation.
102
Hypothesis 9(b):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation between perceived strategic purposes
failure and retaliation.
Hypothesis 10(a):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived role definition
purposes failure and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 10(b):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation between perceived role definition
purposes failure and retaliation.
2.1.18 Perceived organizational support as moderator:
Eisenberg et al. (1986) defined perceptual organizational support as the employee’s
perceptions or considerations about the extent to which organizations value their
contributions and care for employee benefits. Erdogan and Anders (2007) pointed out
"Perceived organizational support refer the individuals believes in the organization's
interest in his / her contributions, values his / her opinions, and helps and supports him /
her". Several types of research have linked the perceived organizational support with
organizational justice theory e.g. Shore and Shore (1995) argued that both distributive
and procedural justice contributes to Perceived Organizational Support. In a recent
meta-Analysis, Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) stated that organizational support
103
involves encouraging reward opportunities, help to connect a progressive assessment of
employees. They refer the study of Greenberg, (1990), in which workers were inquired to
estimate the fairness of their outcomes relative to a reference group (i.e., distributive
justice). Similarly, Moorman et al. (1998) suggested that workers belief in procedural
justice contributed to higher levels of perceived organizational support. In another study,
Wayne et al. (2002) found that both procedural justice and distributive justice perceptions
were positively related to perceived organizational support. Rhoades et al. (2001) found
that employee evaluations of favorable organizational rewards and procedural justice
were both antecedents of POS. Similarly, Muse and Stamper (2007) classify the
perceived organizational support into two concepts: POS-J (Care for Employee Outcomes
and Performance) and POS-R (Care for Employee Benefits and Respect). Both of these
structures affect the employee's view of the organization's support.
Current research has proposed that perceived organizational support also moderates the
relation between performance appraisal purposes failure and overall perception of
injustice. For example, Tekleab, Takeuchi & Tylor (2005) noted that justice perceptions
about fair treatment are proposed to create more rapid and open ended exchange
relationships. Such relationships yield employee obligations to pay back to his supervisor
and organization. it’s simply not what is promised to the individuals, but somewhat,
whatever is provided to the person, which defines the power of the socio-emotional tie
called Perceived Organizational Support. We selected organizational fairness because it
is widely considered a fundamental aspect of employees’ experience that makes an
104
important contribution to POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). When employees
perceive that they are receiving fair treatment in comparison to their coworkers, they
perceive more support. Perceived organizational support is related to developmental
experiences such as formal and informal training and a number of promotions received
(Wayne et al. 1997). Lind (2001b) points out that although individuals can be
distinguished their experience of justice from the source of when asked to do so, the drive
is a sense of overall justice. Similarly, Shapiro (2001) finds that unjust victims respond to
their unfair experiences.
Literature showed that Perceived organizational support serves as a strong predictor of
organizational justice as Erdogan, 2002 argued that when employee experience his first
performance appraisal, the organizational support perceptions have already been formed
by him. Existing literature shows that perceived organizational support is also a
consequence of organizational justice (Masterson etal, 2000). Many researches have
studied perceived organizational support as moderator. Van Schlkwyk et al.(2011)
suggest that POS moderates in the relationship between experiences of bullying by
superiors and turnover intention. As studies have found that employees with high POS
suffer less stress at work and are more inclined to return to work sooner after injury
(Shaw et al., 2013); perceived organizational support
(POS) moderates in the relationship between stressors and citizenship behavior. (Jain,
Giga, & Cooper, 2013). POS acts as moderator between Job Scope and Affective
Commitments (Marchand & Vandenberghe, 2014). Kawai and Mohr (2015) found that
perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support moderated the
105
relationship between role novelty and job satisfaction. Similarly, Rineer, Truxillo,
Bodner, Hammer, and Kraner, (2017) has tested POS as moderator between justice and
objective measures of cardiovascular health.
According to organizational justice theory if organization fulfills these purposes of
performance appraisal, the employees they will have better justice perceptions. when
individuals have a positive exchange with the organization, they may expect the
organizational procedures to be fair (Erdogan, 2002). This expectation may influence
later justice perceptions, by making individuals attend to cues that suggest fairness, and
ignore the cues that suggest unfairness. So when organization successfully implement the
performance appraisal purposes, POS will be positively affected and weaken the injustice
perception but on the other side, organizational failure to achieve the appraisal purposes
(administrative, developmental, role definition and strategic), foster the feelings of
injustice and perceived organizational support may moderate this type of relationship.
Fasolo (1995) noted that distributive and procedural justice dimensions of performance
appraisals described the distinctive change in Perceived organizational support when the
other type of justice (either procedural or distributive) was controlled for.
The fairness theory postulates that performances appraisal purposes failure motivates the
individual to blame the authority responsible for the unfair distribution of reward.
Because supervisors act as agents of the organization, who have responsibility for
directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance, employees would view their
supervisor’s favorable or unfavorable orientation toward them as indicative of the
106
organization’s support (Eisenberger et al., 2002). so normally the employee considers
supervisor responsible for the failure and look for the support from organization.
Similarly, injustice perceptions formed based on fairness theory may be controlled using
the POS as moderator between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice
perceptions. Both of theory and literature suggests that:
Hypothesis 11(a):
POS will moderate the relation between perceived administrative purposefulness failure
and overall injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee with low
perceived organizational support than the individual feeling high organizational support.
Hypothesis 11(b):
POS will moderate the relation between perceived developmental purposefulness failure
and overall injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee with low
perceived organizational support than the individual feeling high organizational support.
Hypothesis 11(c):
POS will moderate the relation between perceived strategic purposefulness failure and
overall injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee with low
perceived organizational support than the individual feeling high organizational support.
Hypothesis 11(d):
107
POS will moderate the relation between perceived role-definition purposefulness failure
and overall injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee with low
perceived organizational support than the individual feeling high organizational support.
THEORETICAL FRAME WORK:
Drawing upon the Justice Theory and previous studies of performance appraisal
purposefulness, justice and perceived organizational support, researcher established an
integrated model for this research. The following is demonstrating the anticipated
relationships among selected variables for this research. The model proposes that if the
employee perceives performance appraisal purposefulness failure, he may have a
negative justice perception about the various performance appraisal purposes, which
consequently leads toward negative behaviors and will influence employee in-role
performance and will foster the employee retaliation in a work setting. Additionally, the
model postulates that the perceived organizational support may change the harmful
influences of perceived performance appraisal purposes failure on injustice perceptions
and on its further behavioral consequences.
108
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
3. CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research used survey technique to study the potential link between Performance
appraisal purposefulness failure, injustice perception, In-role performance, and retaliation
and the way perceived organizational support moderates the links among performance
appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perception.
The target respondents of the survey were cadre civil servants across occupational groups
who receive appraisals from their superiors. This study aimed to measure the
hypothesized relationship among different variables at two times. First, the data was
collected using survey method at time1 in July, 2017 1(N=400) and at Time 2 November,
Performance
appraisal
purposefulness
failure
Perceived
administrative
purposes failure
Perceived
developmental
purposes failure
Perceived strategic
purposes failure
Perceived role
definition purposes
failure
Injustice
Perception
Perceived
organizational
support
In-Role
Performance
Retaliation
Independent
Variables
Dependent
variables
Mediator
Moderator
109
2017 (N=400) with a difference of 03 months as Sims and Szilagyi in (1979) suggested a
time lag of 3-6 months might be more appropriate in leader reward behavior research.
According to the Chen and Agrawal (2017) methodology, At time one, data was
collected for the demographics, independent variables i.e. administrative purposefulness
failure, developmental purposefulness failure, strategic purposefulness failure and role
definition purposefulness failure and moderating variable (perceived organizational
support). At time two, responses for mediating variable (overall injustice perception) and
for outcome variables (In-role performance and retaliation) were gathered. The reason for
collecting data for only two times is that the respondents of outcome variables were
different form the respondents reporting for injustice as the outcome variables were peer
reported.
For the two waves (T1 and T2), questionnaires were sent to 400 civil servants across 12
occupational groups and a total 380 usable questionnaires were returned (95% response
rate) for both times. As the data for dependent variables in-role performance and
retaliation is necessary to be collected from the peers of earlier respondents so to gain
the reliable information, it is assured they know each other and working at the same
place. However, the data for injustice perceptions (Mediator) is also collected from the
same respondents from which data for IV and moderator was collected.
The various selected items of the survey reflect the questions aimed to measure the
different dimensions of the extracted variables. The study uses self-administered survey
110
to inquire about the perceptions and understandings of people on an extensive set of
problems. The questionnaire was prepared in English and administered by the researcher.
Each questionnaire contained a cover letter explaining the main objective of the study
that assure the respondents about research is volunteer and responses will be kept
confidential. appropriate statistical technique is used to analyze the data.
RESEARCH DESIGN:
Time-lag design is of most interest to social psychologists. Schaie (1965) defined a time-
lag design as testing whether "different sample features exist in a sample of the same
period and different samples are measured at different times." In other words, only one
age is studied, but across different cohorts at different times. Cook and Campbell (1979)
also define time-lag design as a single sample design. Therefore, it is also confused by
differences of generations or groups. According to Schaie (1970), the time-lag approach
aims to measure cultural change but confounds environmental treatment or normative
historic-graded impact with simultaneous differences.
A bulk of literature provides evidence for time lag design like (Chung, 2018; Rode &
colleagues 2017; Chen & Agrawal 2017; Chênevert, et al. 2013). Thus, in light of
existing literature and to support the operational design, the study collected the data at
time-1 for independent variable performance appraisal purposefulness failure
(administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition) and moderating (perceived
organizational support) Time 2 of mediator (overall injustice) and for two of
organizational outcome variables (in-role performance, retaliation) as was studied by
111
(Marchand & Vandenberghe, 2014). Moreover, in-role performance and retaliation data
was collected from coworkers (peer reported data).
POPULATION OF STUDY:
This research aimed to collect data from public sector because due to privatization and
reform pressure on public sector organizations of Pakistan, the employees are facing a
continuous changing environment, increasing uncertainty and technological
breakthrough. Additionally, According to IMF Public sector companies’ loss swells to
Rs1.2tr. (2018), which shows the inefficiency of Pakistani public sector Enterprises.
Moreover, Public sector organizations can survive even with inefficient operation, while
poorly run private sector firms can go broke and end up no longer in business.
The population of this research consists on civil servants inducted through FPSC
competitive examination (2007-2013) across various occupational groups. There are
numerous reasons for selecting civil service as the unit of analysis. First, civil servants
are key personnel’s of public sector organizations. National Executive System (NES)
(proposed in 2000s), reported that there is a little focus on path breaking reform towards
the improvement of performance management system in the civil service of Pakistan.
Similarly, Haque and Khawaja (2007) found that 38% of civil servants viewed extreme
level of performance deterioration in public sector. Jabeen (2007) mentioned dissimilarity
between bureaucratic values and cultural values, as a reason of deviation of bureaucracy
from its principles like merit, impersonality, and rule of law. Politicians use bureaucracy
for their own interests instead of letting it work for the public. CSP of Pakistan has
112
adopted an elitist outlook and has not been open to reform or democratic responsiveness;
it is being perceived as inefficient, ineffective, corrupt, and rigid. Also, inadequate
remuneration and low salaries lead to corruption both at low and high levels (Jabeen &
Jadoon, 2013). It is therefore essential that reform effort be initiated given the screaming
evidence on the deficiencies in performance management system of the Civil Service of
Pakistan indicated by national conditions as well as international rankings. The civil
service is responsible for stability and progress in the country that needs to be
restructured and strengthened through a process of reform (Jabeen & Jadoon, 2013).
Therefore, it is critical to choose public sector and especially civil service as unit of
analysis rather than employees of other public and private firms. The study has selected
civil servants allocated to different occupational Group / Services between the years
2007-2013 as population. This population was most suitable for the study because only
the respondents who have evaluated either someone or being evaluated by someone may
perceive performance appraisal purposefulness failure. Most recent inductions were not
falling under the criteria and the record for induction before 2007 has limited access.
The detail of representive population for the study is given in table-1.
113
Table-1: year wise allocation of civil servants to different occupational Group / Services, 2007-2013
Year
Pakistan
Audit &
Accounts
Service
Commerce
& Trade
Group
Pakistan
Customs
Services
Pakistan
Administrative
Service
Foreign
Service
of
Pakistan
Inland
Revenue
Services
Information
Group
Military
Lands &
Cantonments
Office
Management
Group
Police
Service
of
Pakistan
Postal
Group
Railways
(C & T)
Total
2007 24 9 20 35 10 46 16 - - 15 5 180
2008 21 8 18 35 17 36 10 - - 37 3 4 189
2009 48 36 32 38 25 38 42 3 34 36 14 13 359
2010 66 44 13 36 26 39 40 15 61 15 22 11 388
2011 19 2 4 36 25 39 1 10 41 16 8 4 205
2012 23 5 6 35 12 50 14 8 54 19 7 7 240
2013 16 1 5 33 24 41 9 3 57 16 10 7 222
Total 201 104 93 215 115 248 123 36 190 138 54 44 1783
Source: FPSC Annual Reports (2007-2013)
114
SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION:
The sample is defined as a Subset or a portion of a larger group. The researcher drawn a sample
size of 400 through the finite population of 1783 civil servants with a 95% of confidence level.
because It was quite difficult to gather responses from whole of the population due to limited
access and availability of civil servants and the other is time limitation of the study.
Equation 1
𝑛 =𝑁
1 + 𝑁𝑒2
where
n = sample size
N = total population size
e = error
SAMPLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE:
The sampling process involves the selection of an appropriate number of components from the
population so that an investigation of the sample and a comprehension of its basic characteristics
or properties would make it workable for us to sum up and generalize such characteristics or
properties to all of the population components (Sekaran, 2003). The sampling methods mainly
can be categorized in probability and non-probability sampling. The probability sampling
methods include “Simple random sampling”, “systematic sampling”, “Stratified sampling”,
“cluster sampling” and “multistage sampling” and non-probability sampling includes “Quota
sampling” “purposive sampling”, “snowball sampling” and “convenience sampling”. practically,
115
some of the sampling methods labelled here might fit in one study such approach is called mixed
sampling. However, this study will use the stratified random sampling to represent managers
across different occupational groups.
Equation 2
stata =pop
N∗ n
Where
pop= total no. of employees in an occupational group
N=population size
n=sample size
through applying above formula of stratified sampling 46 civil servants will be selected from
Pakistan Audit & Accounts Service, 24 from Commerce & Trade Group, 21 from Pakistan
Customs Services, 49 from Pakistan Administrative Service, 26 from Foreign Service of
Pakistan, 56 from Inland Revenue Services, 28 from Information Group, 9 from Military Lands
& Cantonments, 43 from Office Management Group, 31 from Police Service of Pakistan, 13
from Postal Group, and 10 from Railways (C & T).
116
INSTRUMENTS:
The questionnaires selected by the investigators were based on available literature (Cleveland,
Murphy, & Williams, 1989; Jawahar, 2007; Palaiologos, Papazekos, & Panayotopoulou, 2011);
2002; Abu-Doleh & Weir; Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Pooyan & Eberhardt, Greenberg J.,
1986; Erdogan, 2002; Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, Liden & Maslyn, 1998). The final version of
the questionnaire consisted of 55 questions. The first part covers the respondent's demographic
information and the second part includes the purpose of performance appraisal, overall injustice,
role representation, retaliation and organizational support. The questionnaire will be divided
mainly into two parts to examine the essential features of the key variables in finding the links
between various selected variables. Part one will contain the demographic information of the
respondents i.e., tenure, age, gender, position, educational levels, and appraisal experience.
While Part two covers A, B, C, D, and E sections which contain the instruments aimed to
measure the selected variables. Section A pursues to quantify the performance appraisal
purposefulness (independent variable), Section B seeks to measure overall injustice Perception
(Mediating variable), Section C measures the in-role performance (dependent variable) and
Section D seeks to measure the retaliation (dependent variable) of selected sample. Next, the
Section E presents the item of perceived organizational support (Moderating variable).
3.1.1 Measurement of Perceived Performance appraisal purposefulness failure:
To Measure the various facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure, the scales of
Palaiologos, Papazekos, & Panayotopoulou, 2011; Abu-Doleh & Weir developed on the basis of
original scale of (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989) were used on seven point likert scale
from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”.
117
As there was no direct, scale available for measuring the different types of Performance appraisal
purposefulness failure. As scale which was originally designed to measure performance appraisal
purposes rather than its failure was used. The study adds failure wording to the scale of the
instrument, and adds a description of all facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure (e.g.
Administrative purposefulness failure, developmental purposefulness failure, strategic purposefulness
failure and role definition purposefulness failure) in order to increase the clarity of instrument.
Performance appraisal purposefulness failure is further described as unfair or inaccurate Salary
administration, Promotion, Retention or termination, assessment of poor performance
contributed to purposefulness failure at administrative, developmental, strategic and role
definition level. Then all items are inversely coded so that a high score on the level, ie above 4
indicates a perception of performance appraisal purposefulness failure, with a low score on the level,
i.e. less than 4 means performance appraisal purposefulness and score 4 means neither purposefulness
nor failure. The researcher felt this modification better to match the hypothesized relationship
between the study variables and reduce unnecessary complexity in interpreting and reporting the
results. Moreover, many researchers are observed to follow such practices to measure the two
perspectives of a variable on a single continuum like satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Lepold,
Tanzer, Bregenzer, & Jiménez, 2018), justice and injustice (Colquitt & colleagues, 2015; Jonson,
2008).
3.1.2 Perceived Administrative Purposefulness failure:
To measure the perceived failure of administrative purposes, the study adopted the three item
scale from the study of (Palaiologos, et al., 2011), sample items are (eg, performance evaluation
118
does not helps determine whether to promote, retain or terminate employees, "performance
evaluation" fails to decide what should be received, and whether the performance evaluation
lacks process documents and confirms the employee's performance.) The answers were collected
from a seven-point Likert scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”.. The scale
reliability of original study was 0.796.
3.1.3 Perceived Developmental Purposefulness failure:
The study used scale from (Palaiologos, et al., 2011) to measure the perception of failure
developmental purposes. These include “Performance ratings don’t let employees know where
they stand”, “Performance ratings are not used to provide feedback about employee
performance” and “Performance appraisals don’t identify individual strengths and weaknesses”.
The study measured the responses on a seven point likert scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7
“strongly agree”. The reliability of the original scale of the study was 0.784.
3.1.4 Perceived Role Definition Purposefulness failure:
To measure the failure of role definition purposes, the scale of Palaiologos, et al., (2011) was
used “Performance Appraisal does not provides information about what employees are
responsible for accomplishing”, “Performance Appraisal does not provides information that
helps make positive changes in the job itself” and “Performance Appraisal does not provides
information about what employees actually do in their jobs”. The items used to get the
responder's responses using seven-point Likert scales ranging from 1 to 7, "strongly disagree to
agree." The original study's Cronbach alpha was 0.682
119
3.1.5 Perceived Strategic Purposefulness failure:
The perceived strategic Purposefulness failure was measured using six item scale of (Cleveland,
Murphy, & Williams, 1989) validated by Abu-Doleh & Weir in (2007) on a seven-point Likert
scale from 1 to 7 “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The measurement items include (a)
“PA does not helps in doing Personnel planning”, (2) “PA does not helps in determining
organizational training needs”, (c) “PA does not helps in evaluating goal achievement”, (d) “PA
does not helps in Evaluating personnel systems”, (e) “PA does not helps in Reinforcing authority
structure”, (f) “PA does not helps in Identifying organizational development needs”.
3.1.6 Overall Injustice perception of Performance appraisal:
Although many researchers have developed scales to measure injustice (Hodson, Creighton,
Jamison, Rieble, and Welsh, 1994, Farh et al., 1997, Colquitt, 2001) but these scales emphasize
on the specific dimensions of justice rather than generalized evaluations of injustice at their
workplaces. The research used the perceived overall justice (POJ) scale developed and
confirmed by (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b) for two reasons. First, this study aims to measure
overall injustice perceptions, which are more general in nature and does not emphasis on
dimensionality. Secondly, Colquitt and his colleagues (2015) argued that justice and injustice
should be viewed as opposite ends of a single continuum, as "it seems difficult to simultaneously
view a given justice rule as both adhered to and violated". Previous literature is evident of using
justice scale to measure injustice such as Johnson, (2008) measured injustice through justice
120
scale developed by (Colquitt, 2001) on a five point likert scale. All items were inversely coded
so that a high score on the level, ie above 3 indicates a perception of injustice, with a low score
on the level, ie less than 3 means justice and score 3 means neither fair nor fair ( ibid).
Therefore, present research used overall justice instrument of Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b
includes six items to assess overall justice / injustice on two dimensions, first three measures
“individuals’ personal justice experiences” and the other three are intended to measure “fairness
of the organization in general” The Cronbach's alpha of original study was α = 0.86. The
responses were gathered on a seven point likert scale ranging from 1 to 7 “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree”.
3.1.7 In-role Performance:
The study measured the dependent variable “in-role performance” responses form peers. In order
to obtain the responses, seven items from the Williams and Anderson scales (1991) were used.
The sample items includes “He/She fulfil all the responsibilities specified in his/her job
description”, “He/She consistently meet the formal performance requirements of his/her job” and
“He/She performs tasks that are expected of him/her “. Respondents were asked to give the
response on a seven-point likert scale by choosing their level of agreement for each item, ranging
from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The original reliability of William and
Anderson (1991) scale is 0.91.
3.1.8 Retaliation:
121
To measure the retaliation, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) used 17 item scale to assess the
responses. The peers were asked to rate their colleagues through behavioral observation scales.
These responses were gathered on a 7-point Likert-type scale and asks respondents to indicate
how often they observe their colleagues' involvement in particular behavior over the past month.
Scales ranged from 1 (never over the past month) to 5 (6 or more times over the past month).
Sample items includes “On purpose, damaged equipment or work process”, and “Wasted
company materials”. The Cronbach Alpha value of the original instrument is 0.88.
3.1.9 Perceived Organizational Support (POS):
To measure perceived organizational support, the study used eight item scale developed by
Eisenberger, R., et al. (1986), followed by the recommendations of Rhoades and Eisenberger
(2002). "Since the original scale is one-way and has a high degree of internal reliability, there is
no problem with the use of the short version. The scale consists of the item number.
1,3,7,9,17,21,23 and 27. The factor load for these items ranges from 0.71 to 0.84 (Eisenberg et
al., 1986).
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES:
For this study, the data was collected from civil servants selected during 2007-2013 in different
occupational groups (e.g. Pakistan Audit & Accounts Service, Commerce & Trade Group,
Pakistan Customs Services, Pakistan Administrative Service, Foreign Service of Pakistan, Inland
Revenue Services, Information Group, Military Lands & Cantonments, Office Management
122
Group, Police Service of Pakistan, Postal Group, and Railways through competitive examination.
A close-ended self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) was used to measure the perception of
civil servants regarding the essence performance appraisal purposes and their outcomes.
According to Bowling (2005; 2009) and Gwaltney (2008), Self-administered survey
questionnaires are ideal for achieving a wide geographic coverage of the target population,
dealing with sensitive topics. Moreover, contemporary studies prefer self-administered surveys
due reduced cost, and speed of data collection, particularly the electronic delivery of self-
administered survey questionnaires has received considerable attention (Groves 2009; Lampe
1998; Lane 2006; Shih 2009). Lavrakas, P. (2008) referred in Encyclopedia of Survey Research
Methods that previously self-administered questionnaires were used to gather responses from
sample either in person or by mail. However, today, SAQs are being used extensively for Web
surveys, because the SAQs can be completed without ongoing feedback from the researcher.
Therefore, this research collected data from the various cities of Pakistan based upon the
availability and access to civil servants either in person or through e-mail. From Islamabad,
Lahore, Faisalabad, Jhung, Jehlum, and Sialkot, the researcher collected data in person.
However, from Karachi and Peshawar the responses were gathered through email.
For in-person self-administered questionnaires, All the respondents were individually contacted
by the researcher and was given a brief 15-minute explanation of the study design and the
purpose of the study. Afterwards, the point of contact verbally notified employees in his/her
department about the study and individually asked each employee to voluntarily participate in
the study. The participants orally consented to participate in the study. However, for email self-
123
administered questionnaires, the respondents are telephonically giving the instructions to fill out
the questionnaires. Although previous literature shows that there are potential biases by differing
mode of questionnaire administration (De Leeuw ED, van der Zouwen J., 1988; Bowling, 2005)
and categorized different modes of data collection in four major parts e.g. Face-to-face
interviews, Telephone interviews, Self-administered, postal and Self-administered, programmed,
electronic and the method used by researcher for collecting data comes under the fourth category
represents no change in mode of data collection, hence no chances of biasness.
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:
Cronbach’s Alpha is a commonly used technique to measure the internal reliability of how much
the set of items as group are closely related to each other. So questionnaire’s Cronbach’s alpha
was calculated using SPSS 20 for each of the constructs in the study. Gliem and Gliem, (2003)
explained the rule of thumb for interpreting Cronbach’s alpha is “the closer the value of α is to
1.0 the better the internal consistency of scale items in the questionnaire”. The Table-2 contains
the Cronbach’s alpha values for all of the constructs used in the study and the results indicate
that internal consistency of all constructs is good since it is closer to 1. Reliability analysis
showed that the calculated Cronbach value for Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure
(α = .840), Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure (α = .840), Perceived Strategic
purposefulness failure (α = .917), Perceived Role definition purposefulness failure (α = .873),
Overall injustice perception (α = .959), Perceived Organizational Support (α = 0.843), In-Role
Performance (α = 0.884), and Retaliation (α = 0.920) confirm strong inter item consistency of all
the constructs. Thus the cronbach’s alpha values for instruments were 0.840 or higher, which are
124
considered to be satisfactory to apply the structural equation modelling (SEM) on the data
(Bollen, 1989).
Table 2: Cronbach’s alpha (α)
Construct N of Items Cronbach's
Alpha (α)
Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure 3 .840
Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure 3 .840
Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure 6 .917
Perceived Role definition purposefulness failure 3 .873
Overall injustice perception 6 .959
Perceived Organizational Support 8 .843
In-Role Performance 7 .884
Retaliation 17 .920
0.90 Or greater=Excellent, 0.80 or greater=Good, 0 .70 or greater=Acceptable, 0.60 or greater=Questionable, 0.50 or greater=Poor, 0.50 or
less=Unacceptable
DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES:
The data was analyzed using Structural Equation modeling (SEM) technique using SPSS 20 and
Amos 20. SEM technology has unique advantages in measuring direct and indirect effects Model
validation with multiple dependent variables and using multiple regression equations
Simultaneously (Mehdi et al., 2012). Sekaran, (2003) mentioned that in data analysis we have
three objectives (e.g., getting a feel for the data; testing the goodness of data, and testing the
hypotheses developed for the research). Similarly, Mulaik (2000) and Mulaik Scarpi (2006)
proposed a three-step approach to analyze the data, therefore the study analyzed the data
according to this approach.
125
1 - Establish a common factor analysis of each potential variable
2- Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Measurement Model)
3- Testing a Structure Model.
Common factor analysis is importantly helps to select the appropriate variable that essentially
describe the underlying construct. To examine the common factor analysis correlation and
Cronbach alphas were calculated. Next the Confirmatory Factor Analysis was done to measure
the validity of the variables of the study and lastly the direct and indirect effects were studied
using structural Equation Modeling (SEM). It helps to Analyze the regression weights and p-
values for the variables and its fit indices like relative chi-square (CMIN / DF), GFI, AGFI CFI
and RMSEA, SRMR. Hu and Bentley (1998, 1999) recommend reporting at least one absolute
fitness index and an incremental fitness index in addition to X2. Therefore, six global fit indices
were reviewed to assess model fit: X2, standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR), robust
root mean square residuals (RMSEA), and robust comparison fit index (CFI) NFI.
126
Figure 2: Threshold values for model fit indices
4. CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS:
Demographic analysis allows a researcher to measure different characteristics and dimensions of
population. This study has selected “Occupational group”, “Total experience”, “current job
experience”, “Age”, “Gender”, and “Education” as demographic variables.
Table-3 presents the details of gender of target respondents. The table shows that total numbers
of respondents were 380 from which 84.7% (322) were male and 15.3% (58) were female.
127
Table 3: Gender detail of respondents
Frequency Percent
Male 322 84.7
Female 58 15.3
Total 380 100.0
Table-4 shows that the respondent’s age ranged from below 25 to above 46 years (Below 25
years old=1, 25 – 30 years old=2, 31 – 35 years old=3, 36 – 40 years old=4, 41 – 45 years old=5,
46 years old and above=6) with the age group 31-35 years reported the highest percentage 50%
with 190 respondents, followed by 46.1 (175) having the age group 36-40 years, 2.9% (11) fall in
age group 41-45 years and 1.1% (4) were in the age range from 25-30 years.
Table 4: Age detail of respondents
Frequency Percent
25-30 years 4 1.1
31-35 years 190 50.0
36-40 years 175 46.1
41-45 years 11 2.9
Total 380 100.0
The occupational groups statistics in Table-5 shows that IRS having the largest proportionate of
respondents 15.30% (58), followed by 13.20% (50) from PAAS, 12.90% (49) from PAS, 11.10%
(42) from OMG, 9.70% (37) from IG, 8.40% (32) were from PSP, FSP having a percentage of
128
7.40% (28), C&TG have 6.30% (24) respondents, for PCS, the proportionate is 5.50% (21),
4.50% (17) from postal group and 2.90% (11) for Railways.
Table 5: Table representing the proportionate of Occupational Groups
Frequency Percent
C&TG 24 6.3
FSP 28 7.4
IG 37 9.7
IRS 58 15.3
ML&C 11 2.9
OMG 42 11.1
PAAS 50 13.2
PAS 49 12.9
PCS 21 5.5
Postal Group 17 4.5
PSP 32 8.4
Railways 11 2.9
Total 380 100.0 C&TG=Commerce & Trade Group, FSP= Foreign Service of Pakistan, IG= Information Group, IRS= Inland Revenue Services, ML&C=
Military Lands & Cantonments, OMG= Office Management Group, PAAS=Pakistan Audit & Accounts Service, PAS= Pakistan Administrative
Service, PCS=Pakistan Customs Services, PSP=Police Service of Pakistan
Table-6 shows the qualification details of target respondents. Most of our respondents having
Master (16 years) qualification 73.20% (278), 26.10% (99) were M.Phil, only 0.80% (3) have
reported Bachelor level of qualification (B.A / BSc) and no respondent fall in the PhD category.
Table 6: Qualification Details of Respondents
Frequency Percent
Bachelor 3 .8
Master 278 73.2
M.Phil 99 26.1
Total 380 100.0 1=Bachelor, 2=Master, 3=M.Phil. and 4=Ph.D.
129
Table-7 reports the experience in two categories total experience and current job experience, for
total experience, most of the respondents in the range of 5-9 years 59.50%(226), 25.50% (97)
respondents have experience within 0-4 years, 14.50% (55) fall in the 10-14 years range and
only 0.5% (2) have the experience from 15-19 years. 47.40% (180) respondents for Current job
experiences stand in the range between 5-9 years, followed by 46.60% (177) from 0-4 years
range, 3.20%(12) have 10-14 years’ experience and lastly 2.90% (11) have 15-19 years of
current job experience.
Table 7: Total Experience and Current job Experience
Frequency Percent
Total Experience
0-4 years 97 25.5
5-9 years 226 59.5
10-14 years 55 14.5
15-19 years 2 .5
Total 380 100.0
Current
Experience
0-4 years 177 46.6
5-9 years 180 47.4
10-14 years 12 3.2
15-19 years old 11 2.9
Total 380 100.0
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR RESEARCH VARIABLES
Results in table-8 indicate that maximum mean (5.58) is for PSPF followed by (5.55) for PAPF,
RD contains third highest vale (M=5.49), mean (5.48) represents PRDPF, mean value for PDPF
is (5.43) stands at fifth highest level, next largest mean (5.16) is for OIP, IRD shows a mean
value (2.86), and the lowest mean (2.85) is for POS.
130
CORRELATION ANALYSIS:
Table-8 depicts the correlation results between main variables used in this study. The correlation
results shows negative and significant relationship between independent (PAPF=Perceived
Administrative purposefulness failure, PDPF=Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure,
PSPF=Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure, PIRPF=Perceived Role definition
purposefulness failure) and dependent variable In-role performance (r = -.396**, p < .001), (r = -
.397**, p < .001), (r = -.402**, p < .001), (r = -.373**, p < .001) respectively. Similarly all the
independent variables (PAPF=Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure, PDPF=Perceived
Developmental purposefulness failure, PSPF=Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure,
PIRPF=Perceived Role definition purposefulness failure) have a positive significant correlation
with second dependent variable Retaliation (r = .213**, p < .001), (r = .192**, p < .001), (r =
.171**, p < .001), (r = .207**, p < .001) respectively.
There is negative and significant correlation, between Overall injustice perception and In-role
performance(r = -.285**, p < .001) and positive and significant relation with retaliation (r =
.211**, p < .001). Whereas perceived organizational support is positively correlated with In-role
performance (r = -.278**, p < .001) and negatively with retaliation (r = -.134**, p < .001).
Negative correlation depicts an indirect relationship among two variables, one of which increases
while the other decreases and vice versa.
A higher correlation (r > 0.10) confirms high positive and significant correlation between
independent variables (PAPF, PDPF, PSPF, PRDPF) and mediator (OIP), with dependent
131
variables as (IRD and RD) at p < .05, whereas POS has a negative significant correlation (r=-
.279, p < .005) with OIP.
132
Table 8: Results for descriptive statistics and Correlation Matrix
M SD PAPF PDPF PSPF PIRPF OIP POS IRD RD
PAPF Perceived administrative purposefulness failure 5.55 1.06 1(.84)
PDPF Perceived developmental purposefulness failure 5.58 1.07 .762** 1(.84)
PSPF Perceived strategic purposefulness failure 5.43 1.02 .757** .836** 1(.91)
PIRPF Perceived role definition purposefulness failure 5.48 1.10 .698** .734** .773** 1(.87)
OIP Overall injustice perception 5.16 1.22 .558** .619** .611** .596** 1(.95)
POS Perceived organizational support 2.85 0.96 -.451** -.445** -.463** -.427** -.279** 1(.84)
IRD In-role performance 2.86 0.82 -.396** -.397** -.402** -.373** -.285** .278** 1(.88)
RD Retaliation 5.49 0.83 .213** .192** .171** .207** .211** -.134** .-.077 1(.92)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Note: N=380, Alpha reliabilities given in parenthesis.
133
HYPOTHESES TESTING:
The study postulated to examine the relationship among the selected variables. As Hypothesis-2(a)
predicted that Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice
perceptions, Hypothesis 2(b) predicted Perceived development purposes failure is positively related
to overall injustice perceptions, Hypothesis 2(c) predicted Perceived strategic purposes failure is
positively related to overall injustice perceptions and Hypothesis 2(d) predicted Perceived role
definition purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice perceptions. All the above
hypothesis were tested using the SEM analysis in Amos 20.
SEM is an integral strategy as regression, because it evaluates the model from different
perspectives. SEM researchers can find theories, how to be structurally theoretically linked, and
guidance of meaningful relationships. Previous studies have suggested that SEM is a measurement
model that defines the number of factors, related to the reasons related to the various indicators and
related errors (such as the CFA model). ; And the other is a structural model which indicates how
things related to (e.g., direct or indirect effect, unrelated) (Lei and Wu, 2007); It is also proposed
that before analyzing structural models, SEM researchers must analyze the measuring models
(Thompson, 2004).
4.1.1 Pre SEM assumption
During the data screening, the following data treatment tests were conducted to clean the data:
1- Missing Values detection in data - to detect the responses with missing values
2- Test for normality- to find out any out lawyer values
134
3- Multivariate assumptions
a. Linearity
b. Multicolinearity
c. Homo /heteroscedasticity
4.1.1.1 Test for Missing Values:
Responses with missing values were identified using SPSS 20 and found no missing value in data
4.1.1.2 Test for normality:
Data screening was done to check the normality and skewness in Amos, which is found in range. A
distribution is considered as normal if it has skewness indices of less than three and kurtosis value
being less than 10 (Tong, 2007).
4.1.1.3 Test of Multivariate assumptions
The assumption of linearity was tested by measuring deviation from linearity test available in the
ANOVA test in SPSS. If the Sig value for Deviation from Linearity is less than 0.05, the
relationship between IV and DV is not linear, and thus is problematic. However, all relationships
between IV and DV are found to be linear for this study. The absence of multicolinearity was
checked using VIF values. As results depicted each value is below 10, indicating that the
assumption is met. The scatterplot of the residuals showed that values are equally distributed so this
assumption also met.
4.1.2 Tests of Measurement Models:
135
The measurement model explains the relation among observed and un-observed variables. It links
the measured values of the measuring instrument (i.e. the variables of the observed index) and the
infrastructure. Therefore, the measurement model represents Confirmation Factor Analysis (CFA)
by assigning a model loaded on a specific factor for each metric. It focuses on the verification of
the model and does not explain the relationship between the structures. Shows how to combine the
measured variables to display the structure and use it for verification and reliability testing. In other
words, CFA is the way that test measurement variables represent specific structures. The CFA's
goal is twofold:
1) Confirmed a hypothetical factor structure
2) It is used as a verification method in the measurement model
To check the robustness of each element of the scale, we used the analysis of the confirmation
factors with AMOS SPSS. Although the study allowed to construct an authentic investigation with
constructions well-validated. But, to validate the scale in a particular analysis of the context factor,
was applied. The reduction of variables in the CFA measurement model was modified with the
two-stage model of Kline (2005).
4.1.2.1 Validation of the Measurement Model: Psychometric Checks
To validate the measurement model the acceptable levels of quality were established and the search
for specific proof of construct validity were achieved. Validity explains to what degree the selected
data collection method is measuring the concept in an accurate manner for which it aimed to
136
measure (Saunders and Thornhill, 2003). In order to comply with the validity and reliability
processes, the Convergent validity, Composite Reliability, Discriminant validity measures were used.
Composite reliability (CR):
Previous studies showed that the coefficient of Cronbach alpha sometimes underrates the data
reliability, thus it recommends the measurement of composite reliability (Raykov 1997). The
composite reliability also known as the “construct reliability”. Hair et al. (2010) has set a threshold
value for composite or construct validity upto 0.7, whereas Awang (2012) set the threshold value at
0.6.
To obtain the Convergent validity Xiong et al. (2015) referred that with a significant regression
weight (< 0.05), and entire values of standardized regression coefficient and correlations results
should be (>0.5 and 0.25) respectively. On the other hand, according to Awang, (2012) the average
extracted variance (AVE) of all constructs should be (> 0.5), and the value of CR (composite
reliability) must rather have higher value than AVE. The discriminant validity requires that there
should be a dissimilarity in constructs of the model and the main tests include: (1) the AVE value
of a given construct should be better than maximum squared correlation of all constructs (Xiong et
al., 2015; Hon et al., 2013); (2) AVE must be better from ASV (shared mean variance); (3) the
AVE’s square root for given construction must be better than the coefficient of correlation between
the selected and other constructs (Xiong et al., 2015); (4) AVEs of two constructions must be
greater than the variance shared between the two constructs; and (5) the correlation between
exogenous constructions must be less than 0.85. 2015; Awang 2012); (4) AVEs value of two
constructs must be better from the mutual variance between constructs; and (5) the value of
137
correlation coefficient between exogenous constructs must be (< 0.85). Testing for correlation also
verifies the absence/lack of multicollinearity in the data under observation (Awang 2012).
The ASV presents the average values of squared correlation for the variable in relation to all other
constructs. The study calculated this value using correlation coefficient of constructs found by
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. MSV represents the maximum quadratic correlations value of a
construct in relation to all other. It is also known as the highest quadratic correlation. For the
purpose of this study, the construct validity, convergent and divergent or discriminant validities
were calculated using the stats tool package of Dr. James Gaskin as reported in table-9.
Table 9: Reliability and validity measures for sub-sample.
Constructs CR AVE MSV ASV
overall
injustice
In-role
Performance Retaliation PA purposes
Org.
support
Overall injustice 0.908 0.625 0.504 0.213 0.791
In-role
Performance 0.871 0.499 0.393 0.187 -0.418 0.706
Retaliation 0.935 0.461 0.102 0.063 0.276 -0.207 0.679
PA purposes 0.984 0.940 0.504 0.319 0.710 -0.627 0.319 0.969
Org. support 0.889 0.504 0.278 0.135 -0.313 0.369 -0.171 -0.527 0.710
The results shown in Table-9 that the model achieved a good level of composite reliability and
validity in this study. The C.R (composite reliability) > 0.6 for all constructs indicating a high level
of reliability. The values of Convergent validity were as given: (1) the regression coefficients for
entire constructs were found to be significant at a p value of < 0.05; (2) All normalized regression
138
and square multiple correlation scores for the measurement model were (>0.5 and 0.25)
respectively, above the threshold value (3) the C.R for every element is better from the AVE value
for this factor, but few values of AVE were not > 0.5 (e.g. for in-role performance .499 and for
retaliation, 0.461). According to Fornell and Larcker, 1981 argued discriminant validity <5 is also
acceptable in some cases particularly when all CR and other criterion are strong. Discriminant
validity (1) the AVE for each construct is greater than its MSV and ASV. (2) AVEs of two
constructions are greater than the variance shared between the two constructs; and (3) the
correlation coefficient value among exogenous constructions is < 0.85. Therefore, there is no
presence of multicolinearity in data set.
4.1.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):
The data is found to be normally dispersed as the values of skewness confirmed the presence of
data within satisfactory range, which is +1 to -1 and +2 to -2. The values for asymmetry and
kurtosis between -2 and +2 are considered acceptable in order to prove normal univariate
distribution (George & Mallery, 2010). The confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using
Amos. As there was high correlation among all facets of performance appraisal purposefulness
failure, a second order CFA was performed while for other variables like in-role performance,
retaliation, overall injustice perceptions, and perceived organizational support, a first order CFA
was performed to see if the items are measuring the relevant constructs appropriately.
4.1.2.2.1 Model Fit for CFA:
139
Table-10 shows the fit indices for the overall injustice perception. The baseline analysis of model
fit of the model during confirmatory factor analysis confirms all results falls in the acceptable
ranges. As the above table depicts the weights of NFI, RFI, GFI and CFI are within acceptable
range, above 0.9. The RMSEA and SRMR values are 0.039 and 0.041 respectively, both below .08, the
desired level for model fit. According to the “Two-Index Presentation Strategy” given by Hu and
Bentler (1999), if the RMSEA value equals or lesser from 0.06, then a SRMR should be 0.09 or
lesser.
Table 10: Results of CFA
χ2(df) Ρ
CMIN/
df ratio NFI GFI AGFI TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR
Ρ
close
CFA of overall Injustice
2044.4
(1308) .000 1.563 0.833 0.839 .824 .929 0.932 0.039 0.041 1.00
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
140
Figure 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Table 11: Factor Loading during CFA
Constructs β R2 Significance
Administrative <--- PA purposes 0.932 0.860 .000
Developmental <--- PA purposes 1.000 1.01 .000
Strategic <--- PA purposes 1.000 0.990 .000
Role definition <--- PA purposes 0.944 0.890 .000
oip6 <--- overall injustice 0.665 0.442 .000
oip5 <--- overall injustice 0.713 0.508 .000
oip4 <--- overall injustice 0.823 0.677 .000
oip3 <--- overall injustice 0.801 0.642 .000
oip2 <--- overall injustice 0.832 0.693 .000
oip1 <--- overall injustice 0.887 0.787 .000
141
IRP7 <--- In-role Performance 0.715 0.490 .000
IRP6 <--- In-role Performance 0.69 0.459 .000
IRP5 <--- In-role Performance 0.747 0.571 .000
IRP4 <--- In-role Performance 0.746 0.533 .000
IRP3 <--- In-role Performance 0.762 0.546 .000
IRP2 <--- In-role Performance 0.759 0.556 .000
IRP1 <--- In-role Performance 0.468 0.189 .000
R1 <--- Retaliation 0.693 0.480 .000
R2 <--- Retaliation 0.696 0.485 .000
R3 <--- Retaliation 0.695 0.483 .000
R4 <--- Retaliation 0.695 0.483 .000
R5 <--- Retaliation 0.652 0.425 .000
R6 <--- Retaliation 0.68 0.463 .000
R7 <--- Retaliation 0.71 0.504 .000
R8 <--- Retaliation 0.646 0.417 .000
R9 <--- Retaliation 0.65 0.422 .000
R10 <--- Retaliation 0.728 0.529 .000
R11 <--- Retaliation 0.658 0.433 .000
R12 <--- Retaliation 0.662 0.438 .000
R13 <--- Retaliation 0.686 0.471 .000
R14 <--- Retaliation 0.72 0.518 .000
R15 <--- Retaliation 0.685 0.469 .000
R16 <--- Retaliation 0.564 0.318 .000
R17 <--- Retaliation 0.613 0.376 .000
papf3 <--- Administrative 0.725 0.526 .000
papf2 <--- Administrative 0.774 0.598 .000
papf1 <--- Administrative 0.763 0.582 .000
pdpf3 <--- Developmental 0.797 0.635 .000
pdpf2 <--- Developmental 0.741 0.548 .000
pdpf1 <--- Developmental 0.749 0.562 .000
pspf6 <--- Strategic 0.672 0.453 .000
pspf5 <--- Strategic 0.718 0.515 .000
pspf4 <--- Strategic 0.737 0.543 .000
pspf3 <--- Strategic 0.672 0.451 .000
pspf2 <--- Strategic 0.707 0.499 .000
pspf1 <--- Strategic 0.768 0.589 .000
prdpf3 <--- Role definition 0.717 0.514 .000
prdpf2 <--- Role definition 0.716 0.512 .000
prdpf1 <--- Role definition 0.771 0.595 .000
pos1 <--- Org. support 0.788 0.621 .000
142
pos2 <--- Org. support 0.747 0.557 .000
pos3 <--- Org. support 0.784 0.615 .000
pos4 <--- Org. support 0.668 0.447 .000
pos5 <--- Org. support 0.781 0.610 .000
pos6 <--- Org. support 0.715 0.512 .000
pos7 <--- Org. support 0.641 0.411 .000
pos8 <--- Org. support 0.511 0.261 .000
The results for CFA indicates that unstandardized regression weights to be significant at the 0.01
significance level. The factor loading for performance appraisal purposefulness failure were found
significant as all the loadings are greater than 0.5 ranged from (.932 to 1.000) for administrative,
developmental, strategic and role definition purposefulness failure. The factors loading weights for
Perceived administrative performance failure (PAPF) were also significant as shown by the
standardized regression weights for papf1, papf2, papf3 were greater than 0.5 (ranging from 0.725
to 0.774). The standardized regression scores of pdpf1 (.749), pdpf2 (.741) and pdpf3 (.797) are
lying within the concerned range, above 0.5 and confirms that all items are well loaded on the
performance appraisal developmental purposes failure construct (PDPF). Perceived strategic
purposefulness failure (PSPF) regression weights ranged from 0.672 to 0.768 for all six items.
Lastly, the items loading for Perceived role definition purposes failure (PRDPF) indicates the
standardized regression weights for all items within the acceptable range from 0.716 to 0.771.
The variance analysis showed the significant R2 weights for whole of the items included in study
and every item represents higher variance percentage in dependent variables. For aggregate
performance appraisal purposefulness failure have minimum R2 0.860 for administrative purposes
failure and maximum value is for strategic purposefulness failure which is 0.990. The smallest
value of R2 is against perceived administrative purposes failure is 0.526 for papf3, whereas the
143
papf2 contains maximum value of 0.598, for perceived development purposes failure the minimum
R2 value is of pdpf2=0.548 and maximum R2 for the construct is for pdpf3=0.635, the minimum R2
value is 0.451 for perceived strategic purposes failure and maximum is 0.589 from all six items,
and perceived role definition purposes failure have minimum R2 for Prdpf1 is 0.512 and maximum
value is for prdpf2 which is 0.595 (Table-11).
Factors loadings for overall injustice perception were found within the acceptable ranges as the
standardized regression weights for various items of construct were found to be > 0.5 (ranged from
0.665-0.887). The results of Variance analysis showed that the R2 weights for all overall injustice
items have high significance level and every item is well explaining a higher variance proportionate
in study’s dependent variable as shown in (Table-11)
The Factors loading values for POS perceived organizational support were also lying within
acceptable ranges as the standardized regression weights for all the items were greater than or close
to 0.5 (ranging from.511 to .788).The variance analysis depicted the value of R2 of all items of
perceived organizational support are lying within the acceptable ranges and every item represents a
higher variance proportionate in explaining the dependent variable of study. The model-fit analysis
shows that all the values for the baseline indicators are found within the threshold ranges (Table-
11).
Factors loadings given in Table-11 for in-role Performance indicated that the scores for all of the
items of standardized regression were higher from 0.5 except IRP1 (ranged from 0.468 to 0.762).
The variance analysis depicted the value of R2 of all items of perceived organizational support are
lying within the acceptable ranges and every item represents a higher variance proportionate in
144
explaining the dependent variable of study. The model-fit analysis shows that all the values for the
baseline indicators are found within the threshold ranges.
Factors loadings for retaliation were found within the acceptable range as all of regression weights
(standardized) were > than 0.5 (ranged from 0.564 to 0.728). The variance analysis depicted the
value of R2 of all items of retaliation are lying within the acceptable ranges and every item
represents a higher variance proportionate in explaining the dependent variable of study. The
model-fit analysis shows that all the values for the baseline indicators are found within the
threshold ranges (Table-11)
4.1.3 Structural Model Analysis:
The SEM (structural equation modeling) emphasizes on estimation of relationship within the
postulated latent hypotheses, the structural equation model gives a graphical explanation of nature
of relationship between observed/unobserved variables. Therefore, it identifies the path through
which certain latent variable influence in a direct or indirect manner (like cause) variations in the
other latent variables within the selected model. Thus, SEM defines the relationship between the
various constructs, which are supposed to be used to analyzing the hypotheses.
According to the “Beginner’s guide to Structural Equation Modeling” Modification indices were
developed by Sörbom (1986) and represent an improvement over the first order partial derivatives
already described. A modification index for a particular non-free parameter indicates that if this
parameter were allowed to become free in a subsequent model, then the chi-square goodness-of-fit
145
value would be predicted to decrease by at least the value of the modification index. When the
statistics and/or fit indices suggest inadequate fit of a structural equation model, the model may be
modified, or re-specified, followed by retesting of the modified model (MacCallum, Roznowski, &
Necowitz, 1992). Modification index (MI) provides an estimated value in which the model’s chi-
square (χ2) test statistic would decrease if a fixed parameter were added to the model and freely
estimated (for a more detailed explanation about the computation of the MI, see Satorra,1989 and
S ̈orbom, 1989). MI is carried out by first examining whether adding any fixed parameters to the
model would significantly reduce the model’s χ2 test statistic. If so, researchers would typically
examine the set of statistically significant, potential re-specifications to determine which would
lead to the largest decrease in the model’s χ2. If the re-specification leading to the largest reduction
in χ2 is theoretically plausible, it could be added in order to improve model fit (Whittaker, 2012).
This process would be repeated until adding any fixed parameters would not significantly reduce
the model’s χ2 or until none of the statistically significant, potential re-specifications are
theoretically plausible to include in the model (Bollen,1989).
4.1.3.1 Relationship between Administrative purposefulness failure and In-role Performance
and Retaliation
The model fit of the hypothesis-1 (a) and (b) was evaluated by multiple fit indices of the path
analysis, which reveals that the modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as shown in table-12.
The results showed a Chi-square value, a normed Chi-square (χ2 565.8 p, 0.000), CMIN/df ratio
(1.76) which is below five. The CFI (Comparative Fit Index) value equals to .946, and the value for
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) is (.045) and SRMR (.038), both are less
than .08 with a significant p-value for close-fit represents as an indicator of goodness of model-fit
and all the results found to be in acceptable ranges
146
Table 12: Results showing the relationship between Administrative purposefulness failure
and In-role Performance and Retaliation
Construct Path Construct χ2
(df) Ρ CMIN/
df ratio GFI AGFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
H1 (a) In-role
Performance <---
Administrative
Purposefulness failure 565.8
(322) .000 1.76 .905 .888 .946 .942 .045 .038
0.925
H1 (b) Retaliation <---
Administrative
Purposefulness failure
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
The regression results in figure-4 depicted that the Perceived administrative purposefulness
failure was found to be a significant negative predictor of in-role performance (β = -.475, ρ < .001),
and also a significant and positive relationship was confirmed between Perceived administrative
purposefulness failure and retaliation (β = .235, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-1 (a) and
hypothesis-1 (b) are accepted.
147
Figure 4: Path Model showing the relationship between Administrative purposefulness failure
and In-role performance and Retaliation
148
4.1.3.2 Relationship between Developmental purposefulness failure and In-role Performance
and Retaliation
The model fit of the hypothesis-2 (a) and hypothesis-2 (b) was tested using multiple fit indices of
the path analysis. The analysis reveals that the modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as
shown in table-13. The results shows a Chi-square value of (χ2 577.04 p, 0.000), CMIN/df ratio of
(1.79) which is below 5; GFI (.902), the value of CFI (Comparative Fit Index) equals to 0.944, TLI
(.939) and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value is (.046) and SRMR (.039),
both lies below the 0.08 with a significant p-value for close-fit, represents as an indicator of
goodness of model-fit and all the results found to be in acceptable ranges.
Table 13: Results showing the relationship between Developmental purposefulness failure and
In-role Performance and Retaliation
Construct Path Construct χ2
(df) Ρ CMIN/
df ratio GFI AGFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
H2 (a) In-role
Performance <---
Developmental
Purposefulness failure 577.0
(322) .000 1.79 .902 .885 .944 .939 .046 .039
0.878
H2 (b) Retaliation <---
Developmental
Purposefulness failure
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
The regression results displayed in figure-5 depicted Perceived developmental purposefulness
failure is significantly and negatively predicts the in-role performance (β = -.46, ρ < .001) and also
a positive and significant relation was confirmed among Perceived developmental purposefulness
failure and retaliation (β = .21, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-2 (a) and (b) are accepted.
149
Figure 5: Path model showing the relationship between developmental purposefulness failure
and In-role performance and Retaliation
150
4.1.3.3 Relationship between Strategic purposefulness failure and In-role Performance and
Retaliation
The model fit of the hypothesis-3 (a) and hypothesis-3 (b) were evaluated by multiple fit indices of
the path analysis. The results reveals that the modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as
shown in table-14. The results showed a Chi-square value (χ2 665.2, p .000), CMIN/df ratio equals
1.65 which is below5, the threshold value. GFI (.901), CFI (Comparative Fit Index) value equals to
.948, TLI (.944). RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value is (.041) and SRMR
(.038), both are lesser from .08, having a p-value falls within significant ranges for close-fit, used
as an indicator of goodness of model-fit and all the results found to be in acceptable ranges.
Table 14: Results showing the relationship between Strategic purposefulness failure and In-
role Performance and Retaliation
Construct Path Construct χ2
(df) Ρ CMIN/
df ratio GFI AGFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
H3 (a) In-role
Performance <---
Strategic
Purposefulness failure 665.2
(403) .000 1.65 .901 .886 .948 .944 .041 .038
0.995
H3 (b) Retaliation <---
Strategic
Purposefulness failure
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
The regression results figure-6 depicted Perceived strategic purposefulness failure was significantly
and negatively predicts in-role performance (β = -.47, ρ < .001) and a significant and positive
relationship was confirmed between Perceived strategic purposefulness failure and retaliation (β =
.19, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-3(a) and hypothesis-3(b) are accepted.
151
Figure 6: Path Model showing the relationship between Strategic purposefulness failure and
In-role performance and Retaliation
152
4.1.3.4 Relationship between Role definition purposefulness failure and In-role Performance
and Retaliation
The model fit of the hypothesis-4 (a) and (b) were evaluated by multiple fit indices of the path
analysis. The output of analysis reveals that the modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as
shown in table-15, the results showed a Chi-square value, (χ2 827.27 p, 0.000), CMIN/df ratio
equals 2.618 which is below the acceptable value of 5, GFI (.870), CFI (Comparative Fit Index)
value equals to .899, NFI (.847) and the value for RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation) is (.065) and SRMR (.038), both are below .08, with an acceptable p-value
ensures the close-fit which is used as an indicator of goodness of model-fit and all the results found
to be in acceptable ranges.
Table 15: Results showing the relationship between Role definition purposefulness failure and
In-role Performance and Retaliation
Construct Path Construct χ2
(df) Ρ CMIN/
df ratio GFI AGFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
H3 (a) In-role
Performance <---
Role definition
Purposefulness failure 566.8
(322) .000 1.76 .904 .887 .946 .941 .045 .038
0.924
H3 (b) Retaliation <---
Role definition
Purposefulness failure
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
The regression results figure-7 depicted Perceived role definition purposefulness failure
significantly and negatively predicts in-role performance (β = -.45, ρ < .001) and a significant and
positive relationship was confirmed between Perceived role definition purposefulness failure and
retaliation (β = .25, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-4 (a) and (b) are accepted.
154
Figure 7: Path Model showing the relationship between Role definition purposefulness failure
and In-role performance and Retaliation.
4.1.3.5 Relationship between performance appraisal purposefulness (administrative,
developmental, strategic and role definition) failure and In-role Performance and
Retaliation
After testing different facets of Performance appraisal purposefulness failure individually with the
both of dependent variables (e.g. in-role performance and retaliation), a second order relationship
was tested to confirm the accuracy of model because there was a high correlation among different
facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure. The output of analysis reveals that the
modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as shown in table-15, the results showed a Chi-
square value, (χ2 1131.4 p, 0.000), CMIN/df ratio equals 1.63 which is below the acceptable value
of 5, GFI (.872), CFI (Comparative Fit Index) value equals to .942, TLI (.938) and the value for
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) is (.041) and SRMR (.039), both are below
.08, with an acceptable p-value ensures the close-fit which is used as an indicator of goodness of
model-fit and all the results found to be in acceptable ranges.
Table 16: Results showing the relationship between all facets of performance appraisal
purposefulness failure as a second order construct and In-role Performance and Retaliation
Construct Path Construct χ2
(df) Ρ CMIN/
df ratio GFI AGFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
H1 (a)
H2 (a)
H3 (a)
H4 (a)
In-role
Performance c
All facets of
performance appraisal
Purposefulness failure
1131.4
(695) .000 1.63 .872 .857 .942 .938 .041 .039
1.0
155
H1 (b)
H2 (b)
H3 (b)
H4 (b)
Retaliation <---
All facets of
performance appraisal
Purposefulness failure
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
The regression results figure-8 depicted Perceived role definition purposefulness failure
significantly and negatively predicts in-role performance (β = -.48, ρ < .001) and a significant and
positive relationship was confirmed between Perceived role definition purposefulness failure and
retaliation (β = .40, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-4 (a) and (b) are accepted.
Comparing the results of hypothesis tested individually and as second order construct revels that
there is no significant change in goodness of model fit Table-16. The beta value for in-role
performance (β = -.48, ρ < .001) and retaliation (β = .24, ρ < .001) also not significantly different
from the one calculated for H1(a) (b), H2 (a) (b), H3 (a) (b) and H4 (a) (b).
156
Figure 8: Path Model showing the performance appraisal purposefulness failure as second
order construct and its relationship with in-role performance and Retaliation.
157
4.1.3.6 Relationship between Performance appraisal purposefulness failure (PAPF, PDPF,
PSPF, and PRDPF) and Overall injustice perception
Results for hypothesis-5 showed the model fit statistics prefer the Chi-square test (χ2) for an
accurate mode fit. The lower the scores and significance, the better the model fit. The results for
hypothesis-5 (b) showed a lower χ2value than hypothesis-5 (a), hypothesis-5 (d) and hypthesis2 (c)
(χ2 59.9, p 0.000, χ2 64.8., p, 0.000 χ2 73.3, p, .000 and χ2 119.7, p, 0.000 respectively).
The other important indicator to determine the model fit is the ratio between χ2 and the level of
degrees of freedom (df) in model. This ratio should be 1.0 >CMIN/DF ≤ 3.0 for Best Fit, 3.0
>CMIN/DF ≤ 5.0 for acceptable and CMIN/DF > 5.0 indicates a Poor Fit. The (χ2 / df) ratio values
for hypthesis5 (a) showed a lower CMIN value than hypthesis5 (b), hypthesis5 (c) and hypthesis5
(d) (M1=2.49, M2=2.30, M3=2.25 and M4=2.93 respectively.
The below table-17 shows the model consistencies and goodness of fit indices of all the four
models representing direct relationships of Papf, Pdpf, Pspf and Prdpf and overall injustice
perception responses, to be discussed in following pages. The values of Comparative Fit Index
(CFI), Non-normed Fit Index (NFI) to confirm the incremental fit, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI),
and Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and SRMR ensure the absolute mode fit to
measure the model fit. The standard criteria to determine the model fits consisting upon CFI (CFI ≥
0.95 represents Best Fit and CFI ≥ 0.90 is acceptable), NFI should also be ≥ 0.90, and GFI (≥ 0.90
to1.00) indicate good fit. According to kline (2005) the RMSEA requires values ≤ 0.05 for good fit
and ≤ 0.09 suggest acceptable fit. In model-1 comprised on hypothesis 5 (a), the GFI: 0.965, CFI:
0.980, NFI: 0.969, RMSEA: 0.063 and P close 0.127 Model-2 for (hypothesis 2 (b)), also showed a
good fit as GFI: 0.965, CFI: 0.983, NFI: 0.970, RMSEA: 0.059 and P close: 0.214. The Model fit
158
values for of model-3 (hypothesis 2 (c)) indicates (GFI:0.951, CFI:0.973, NFI:0.953,
RMSEA:0.057 P close=0.339. lastly model-4 (hypothesis 2 (d)) GF:0.960, CFI:0.976, NFI:0.964,
RMSEA: 0.071 and P close:0.030. the model fit statistics for all hypothesis proved a good fit. and
hypothesis-5 (b) provides the best fit as compare to hypothesis-5 (a), (c)-and (d).
Table 17: Relationship between IVs and Mediator (OIP)
χ2 (df) Ρ CMI
N/df
ratio
GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
H5 (a) Papf and oip 64.8 (26) .000 2.49 .965 .980 .969 .063 .0343 .127
H5 (b) Pdpf and oip 59.9 (26) .000 2.30 .965 .983 .970 .059 .0315 .214
H5 (c) Pspf and oip 119.7 (53) .000 2.25 .951 .973 .953 .057 .0339 .176
H5(d) Prdpf and oip 73.3 (25) .000 2.93 .960 .976 .964 .071 .0591 .030
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
4.1.3.7 Perceived Administrative purposes failure and Overall injustice perception Responses
The path model shown in figure-9 clarifying the relations between perceived administrative
purposes failure and overall injustice perception. The analysis showed a good model fit, χ2 = 64.8,
p= .000, the CMIN/df ratio = 2.49, GFI=.965, CFI = .980, NFI=.969, RMSEA = .063,
SRMR=.0343, P Close = .127. The results fall within the acceptable ranges (Table-18).
159
Table 18: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived administrative
purposes failure and Overall Injustice Perception Responses
Hypothesis-1 (a) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/d
f ratio
GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
Papf and oip 64.8 (26) .000 2.49 .965 .980 .969 .063 .0343 .127
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
Figure 9: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived administrative
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception
The results depicted Perceived administrative purposefulness failure was found to be a significant
and positive predictor of overall injustice perception (β = .65, ρ < .05).
160
4.1.3.8 Perceived Developmental purposes failure and Overall injustice perception Responses
The path model shown in figure-10 clarifying the relations between perceived developmental
purposes failure and overall injustice perception. The results showed a good model fit, χ2 = 59.95,
p=.000, the CMIN/df ratio = 2.30, GFI=.965, CFI = .983, NFI=.970, RMSEA = .059,
SRMR=.0315, and P Close = .214 (Table-19).
Table 19: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived developmental
purposes failure and Overall Injustice Perception Responses
Hypothesis-1 (b) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/df
ratio
GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
Pdpf and oip 59.9 (26) .000
0
2.30 .965 .983 .970 .059 .0315 .214
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
Figure 10: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived developmental
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception
Perceived developmental purposefulness failure was found to be a significant and positive predictor
of overall injustice perception (β = .70, ρ < .05).
161
4.1.3.9 Perceived Strategic purposes failure and Overall injustice perception Responses
The path model shown in figure-11 clarifying the relations between perceived developmental
purposes failure and overall injustice perception. The results for path model showed a good model
fit, χ2 = 90.75, p= .000, the CMIN/df ratio = 2.25, CFI = .973, RMSEA = .057, SRMR=.0339 and
P Close = .176 (Table-20).
Table 20: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived strategic purposes
failure and Overall Injustice Perception Responses
Hypothesis-1 (c) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/d
f ratio
GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
Pspf and oip 119.7 (53) .000 2.25 .951 .973 .953 .057 .0339 .176
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
Figure 11: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived Strategic
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception
Perceived strategic purposefulness failure was found to be a significant and positive predictor of
overall injustice perception (β = .69, ρ < .05).
162
4.1.3.10 Perceived Role Definition Purposes Failure and Overall injustice perception Responses
The path model shown in figure-12 clarifying the relations between perceived developmental
purposes failure and overall injustice perception. To fit the data well, the modification indices
suggested revision in the initial model, which is meaningful both conceptually and statistically (in
terms of a relatively strong improvement in the model’s fit) by linking the error terms of items 8
and 9 in the overall injustice scale. The re-analysis improved the model fit, χ2 = 73.36, p= .000
(shows that the model is internally consistent), the CMIN/df ratio = 2.93, CFI = .976, RMSEA =
.071; P Close = .030 (Table-21).
Table 21: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived role definition
purposes failure and Overall Injustice Perception Responses
Hypothesis-1 (d) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/d
f ratio
GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
Prdpf and oip 73.36 (25) .000 2.93 .960 .976 .964 .071 .0591 .030
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
Figure 12: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived role definition
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception
Perceived role definition purposefulness failure was found to be a significant and positive predictor
of overall injustice perception (β = .94, ρ < .05).
163
4.1.3.11 Relationship of all Facets of Performance appraisal purposefulness failure as second
order construct with Overall injustice perception
The path model shown in figure-11 measure the relationship of all facets of performance appraisal
purposefulness (administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition) failure as second
construct with overall injustice perception. The results for path model showed a good model fit, χ2
= 477.45, p= .000, the CMIN/df ratio = 2.59, CFI = .941, RMSEA = .065, SRMR=.0337 and P
Close = .000 (Table-22).
Table 22: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived role definition
purposes failure and Overall Injustice Perception Responses
Hypothesis-1 (d) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/d
f ratio
GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close
Prdpf and oip 477.4 (184) .000 2.59 .892 .941 .908 .065 .0377 .000
Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit
Figure 13: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived role definition
purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception
164
4.1.3.12 Overall Injustice Perception and In-role performance and Retaliation Responses
Again SEM was used to test the Hypothesis-3, postulating that the overall injustice’s relationship
with both dependent variables e.g. In-role performance and Retaliation. Table-23 showed the
results of fit statistics calculated for the relationship hypothesized. The chi square value (χ2 702.2 p,
0.000). The model fit exhibit from CMIN/DF ratio is < 3.0, indicates a best fit, the CFI: 0.946, NFI:
0.883, GFI: 0.896, SRMR= .0410 and RMSEA: 0.044 also ensures the good fit for the hypothetical
model.
Table 23: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Overall Injustice Perception
and In-role Performance and Retaliation
Hypothesis χ2(df) Ρ CMIN/df
ratio GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR
Ρ
close
H6 (a) Oip → IRP 702.2 (403) .000 1.74 0.896 0.946 0.883 0.044 .0410 .960
H6 (b) OIP →
Retaliation
165
Figure 14: Path diagram showing the relationship between Overall Injustice Perception and
In-role performance and Retaliation
The results confirmed a negative and significant relationship with in-role performance (β = -.326, ρ
< .001, positive and significant relationship with retaliation (β = .226, ρ <.05). The whole results
indicates a good relationship among the predictors and dependent variables. The results confirms
the hypothesis-6 (a) and (b).
166
Table 24: Summary of regression results for direct hypothesis
Hypothesis Sign Path β SE CR>1.96
H1 (a) - PAPF → IRP -.47***
.064 -5.76 Accepted
H1 (b) + PAPF→ R .23***
.054 3.88 Accepted
H2 (a) - PDPF → IRP -.46***
.053 -6.00 Accepted
H2 (b) + PDPF→ R .21***
.046 3.65 Accepted
H3 (a) - PSPF → IRP -.46***
.060 -5.85 Accepted
H3 (b) + PSPF→ R .19***
.050 3.31 Accepted
H4 (a) - PRDPF → IRP -.45***
.063 -5.55 Accepted
H4 (b) + PRDPF→ R .25***
.054 4.08 Accepted
H5 (a) + PAPF → OIP .64***
.086 10.88 Accepted
H5 (b) + PDPF → OIP .70***
.097 11.31 Accepted
H5 (c) + PSPF → OIP .69***
.095 11.50 Accepted
H5 (d) + PRDPF → OIP .94**
.063 17.20 Accepted
H6 (a) - OIP → IRP -.33**
.046 -5.38 Accepted
H6 (b) + OIP →R .23**
.048 3.96 Accepted
4.1.3.13 Mediation Analyses:
The indirect effects is postulated in hypothesis 7, (a) and (b), hypothesis 8, (a) and (b), hypothesis
9, (a) and (b), hypothesis 10, (a) and (b), which are aimed to test the mediating role of overall
injustice perception between predictors (perceived administrative purposes failure, perceived
developmental purposes failure, perceived strategic purposes failure and perceived role definition
167
purposes failure) and criterion variables (in-role performance and retaliation). Barron and Kenny
suggested a multistep method to test the mediation, despite of its historical popularity, the method
entails some serious methodological problems like this method implies that there should be a
significant relation between X (predictor) Y (Dependent) and M (Mediator). This is not always the
case and sometimes, although X and Y seem not to be related, they can be significantly mediated
by an M. Therefore, the current research suggested no further use of total effect (c) for tests of
mediation (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, et al., 2002). Moreover, it
is widely recommended to replace this approach more statistically powerful, make fewer
assumptions of the data, and are more logically coherent (Hayes, 2009; 2013; Shrout & Bolger,
2002). Similarly, Sobel test which was initially recommended by the researcher due to its ability to
show a significant indirect effect between the relationship of predictor and criterion variable
(Kenny D., 2016, Cole, Walter, & Bruch, 2008) considered as a more powerful tool to test the
mediation was later on evaded because of the lack of power of the Sobel test and its reliance on a
normal sampling distribution, it is best to use when data met the normality assumption. MacKinnon
et al., (2004) and Hayes (2013) recommended using bootstrapping for mediation because it reduces
the problem of power related tests. it takes a apparently huge random samples with substitution
(e.g., 5000) of the similar sample size from given data, measuring the indirect effect (the ab path) in
each sample, comparing those estimates from lowermost to uppermost, and then express a
confidence interval for indirect effect within certain array of percentiles (e.g., 5th and 95th for a
95% confidence interval).
Therefore, to verify the results. the mediation was tested using Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) in analysis of a moment structure (AMOS), Version 20.0 because it allows to test all
Mediation Model Components (SEM) (Arbuckle, 2012). A 5000 bootstrap resampling method and
168
bias correction for mediation analysis was used (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004;
Preacher & Hayes, 2004).
4.1.3.13.1 Mediation analysis Using SEM
Model fit through SEM was examined using the chi-square statistic, the Comparative Fit Index
(CFI), NFI, the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) and SRMR. The results of mediation path model showed a good fit with the data: a chi
square value (χ2 2180.55 p, 0.000). The CMIN/DF ratio is 2.33, does not indicates a best fit, the
CFI: 0.856, TLI: 0.848, GFI: 0.791, and RMSEA: 0.059 and SRMR: 0.065. As the initial model
fails to explain data well, the modification indices suggested revision in the initial model, which is
meaningful both conceptually and statistically (in terms of a relatively strong improvement in the
model’s fit) by linking the error terms of items 7,10 and 15 in the retaliation scale and items 2 and 4
in in-role performance scale. The re-analysis improved the model fit, χ2 = 1659.04, p= .000 (shows
that the model is internally consistent), the CMIN/df ratio = 1.78, TLI=.911, GFI=.844, CFI = .916,
RMSEA = .045; P Close = .0985 (Table-25) As overall model fit ranged from moderate to good,
and was generally acceptable for each analysis when viewed across the fit indices.
Table 25: Summary of Model Fit for Mediation analysis
Mediation χ2(df) Ρ CMIN/df
ratio GFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Ρ
close
Model Fit Statistics 1659.0 (932) .000 1.78 0.844 0.916 0.911 0.045 0.08 .985
169
Figure 15: Path diagram showing Mediation of Overall Injustice Perception on the Relation
between Administrative, Developmental, Strategic and Role definition purposefulness failure
and In-role Performance and Retaliation
170
4.1.3.13.1.1 Mediation effects overall injustice perception on In-role performance and retaliation
through perceived developmental purposes failure:
Hypothesis 7(a) and (b) to hypothesis 10 (a) and (b) was tested for the assumption that Overall
injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived administrative, developmental, strategic
and role definition purposes failure and its consequent variables (e.g. in-role performance and
retaliation). The results presented in Table-26-27, for hypothesis 7 (a), 8 (a), 9 (a) and 10 (a)
showed a significant direct effect of performance appraisal purposefulness failure on overall
injustice perception (path-a) (β = 0.709, P = .000, CI = 0.61 to 0.79), but the direct effect of overall
injustice and in-role performance (path-b) was insignificant (β = -.041, P = .536, CI = -0.09 to
0.153) and the (path-c’) showing the effects of all facets of performance appraisal purposes failure
on in-role performance (β = -.0492, P = .005, CI = -0.665 to -0.31) was also found to be significant.
The bootstrap indirect effect confirmed the perceived developmental purposes failure on in-role
performance through overall injustice perception (β = 029, P = .005, CI = -0.067 to 0.107) at a 95%
confidence interval. The results shows no mediation for in-role performance because MacKinnon et
al. in (2004) argued that the presence of 0 between the lower and upper bound of CI suggests no
mediation.
Next for hypothesis 7 (b), 8 (b), 9 (b) and 10 (b) the Overall injustice perception mediation was
tested among perceived administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition purposes failure
and retaliation. The results specifies the direct effect between all facets of performance appraisal
purposes failure on overall injustice (β = 0.709, P = .000, CI = 0.61 to 0.79) was significant. The
direct effect of overall injustice and retaliation (path-b) was two tailed significant with values (β =
171
.172, P = .018 CI = 0.032 to 0.311). The indirect effects of performance appraisal purposes failure
and retaliation (path-c’) was insignificant (β = .101, P = .307 CI = -0.099 to 0.298) when mediator
was entered.
The bootstrap indirect effect of performance appraisal purposefulness failure on retaliation through
overall injustice perception was found to be significant ((β = .122, P = .001 CI = 0.025 to 0.231), at
a 95% confidence interval. Accordingly, the overall injustice fully mediates the relationship
between all facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure and retaliation. As literature
suggests if path c’ becomes insignificant at the entrance of mediation in model there will be full
mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Therefore, the results of study support hypothesis-7 (b), 8 (,b)
9 (b)and 10 (b) to the extent of retaliation and rejected hypothesis-7 (a), 8 (a) 9 (a) and 10 (a) to the
extent of in-role performance.
Table 26: Regression Weights: Structural model for testing mediation
Construct Path Construct Estimate S.E. C.R. P Results
Administrative <--- PA purposes failure 0.93
Developmental <--- PA purposes failure 1.004 .083 14.212 *** Significant
Strategic <--- PA purposes failure 0.997 .085 12.118 *** Significant
Role definition <--- PA purposes failure 0.943 .083 12.321 *** Significant
overall injustice <--- PA purposes failure 0.709 .097 11.829 *** Significant
Retaliation <--- Overall injustice 0.172 .045 2.065 .039 Significant
Retaliation <--- PA purposes failure 0.101 .073 1.225 .221 Not Significant
In-role
Performance <--- PA purposes failure -0.492 .068 -5.474 *** Significant
172
Construct Path Construct Estimate S.E. C.R. P Results
In-role
Performance <--- Overall injustice 0.041 .038 .503 .615 Not Significant
Table 27: Bootstrapping Results - Mediation analysis of the effect of Developmental purposefulness
failure on In-role performance and Retaliation through Overall injustice Perception
Construct Path Constructs Point
Estimates
Boot
S.E
Bootstrapping
Percentile 95% CI ρ
Lower Upper
Standardized Direct effects
Administrative <--- PA purposes failure 0.93 .021 0.882 0.967 0.000
Developmental <--- PA purposes failure 1.004 .016 0.971 1.034 0.000
Strategic <--- PA purposes failure 0.997 .011 0.973 1.019 0.000
Role definition <--- PA purposes failure 0.943 .021 0.898 0.982 0.001
overall injustice <--- PA purposes failure 0.709 .046 0.61 0.79 0.000
Retaliation <--- Overall injustice 0.172 .072 0.032 0.311 0.018
Retaliation <--- PA purposes failure 0.101 .102 -0.099 0.298 0.307
In-role
Performance <--- PA purposes failure -0.492 .090 -0.665 -0.31 0.000
In-role
Performance <--- Overall injustice 0.041 .061 -0.09 0.153 0.536
Standardized Indirect effects
Retaliation <--- PA purposes failure 0.122 .053 0.025 0.231 0.015
In-role
Performance <--- PA purposes failure 0.029 .043 -0.067 0.107 0.529
Note: n=380, standardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size=5000, LL= Lower Limit; CI =
Confidence Interval; UL= upper limit. Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95.00
173
4.1.3.14 Moderation Analysis:
The perceived organizational support (POS) was tested as moderator between (perceived
performance appraisal purposefulness failure, perceived developmental purposes failure, perceived
strategic purposes failure, perceived role definition purposes failure) and overall injustice
perception and it was assumed that, the stronger the relationship for an employee with low
perceived organizational support than the individual feeling high organizational support. The Baron
and Kenny’s method for moderation was used to assess the moderation effects upon the suggested
variables. The Hayes model-1 was used to test the moderation among the variables.
4.1.3.14.1 Moderation Analysis of perceived organizational Support between the relationship
of perceived administrative purposes failure and Perceived Overall Injustice:
The results for the Hypothesis-11 (a) shown in table-39 displays the direct effects of perceived
administrative purposes failure (β = .268, p < .05) on overall injustice perception and found to be
significant and positive. Age gender, education and current experience were entered as control
variables in first step. The results showed that age (β = -.0097, p >.05), gender (β = .074, p >.05),
education (β = .265, p > .05) and current experience (β = .0310, p > .05) has no significant effects
on OIP. Whereas perceived organizational support (β = -.668, p < .05) have significant negative
impact on overall injustice perception. An examination of the perceived organizational support as
moderator between perceived administrative purposes failure and overall injustice perception using
the Model-1 in Process, shows an overall model significance (F=14.71, p=.0000) accounting for
19.7% of variance in overall injustice perception (R2 =.197). The POS significantly interact with
174
OIP (β= -.2878, p < .05). The interaction effect of POS and OIP explained a 1.78% variance (ΔR2
=0.0178, F=13.50 p < .05), so the POS negatively and significantly influence the relationship
between the two variables, as the subordinates with high POS level will low OIP than those who
are lower on POS.
4.1.3.14.2 Moderation Analysis of perceived organizational Support between the relationship
of perceived developmental purposes failure and Perceived Overall Injustice
Table-40 displays the results for the Hypothesis-11 (b) depicts a significant direct effect of
perceived developmental purposes failure (β = .3159, p < .05) on overall injustice perception. Age
gender, education and current experience were entered as control variables in first step. The results
showed that age (β = -.0338, p >.05), gender (β = .1355, p >.05), and current experience (β = -
.1473, p > .05) has no significant effects on OIP. However, education (β = .2810, p < .05) is
significantly and positively influence the oip when entered with developmental purposes failure.
This can be explained as people with more education build higher overall injustice perception when
developmental purposes failure occurs. The perceived organizational support (β = -.5686, p < .05)
is negatively related with overall injustice perception. The perceived organizational support was
examined as moderator between perceived administrative purposes failure and overall injustice
perception using the Model-1 in Process. The results shows an overall model fit (F=22.11,
p=.0000) accounting for 22.77% of variance in overall injustice perception (R2 =.2277). The POS
significantly interact with OIP (β= -.3537, p < .05). The interaction effect of POS and OIP
explained a 2.48% variance (ΔR2 =0.0248, F=19.04 p < .05), thus the POS weaken the direct
relationship the two variables, proving that as the employees with high POS will perceive low
175
injustice in result to a perceived failure in performance appraisal developmental purposes than
those who are lower on POS.
4.1.3.14.3 Moderation Analysis of perceived organizational Support between the relationship
of perceived strategic purposes failure and Perceived Overall Injustice
The results for the Hypothesis-11 (c) shown in table-41 displays the direct effects of perceived
strategic purposes failure (β = .5495, p < .05) are positive and significant effect on OIP. Age
gender, education and current experience were entered as control variables in first step. The results
showed that age (β = -.0856, p >.05), gender (β = .0769, p >.05), and current experience (β = -
.2369, p > .05) has no significant effects on OIP. However, education (β = .3010, p < .05) is
significantly and positively influence the oip when entered with strategic purposes failure. This can
be explained as people with more education build higher overall injustice perception when strategic
purposes failure occurs. The perceived organizational support (β = -.2899, p < .05) found to have
significant negative impact on overall injustice perception. The moderation analysis of perceived
organizational support between perceived administrative purposes failure and overall injustice
perception was examined using the Model-1 in Process. The results displays an overall model
significance (F=37.49, p=.0000) accounting for 35.31% of variance in overall injustice perception
(R2 =.3531). The POS significantly interact with OIP (β= -.1607, p < .05). The interaction effect of
POS and OIP explained a 0.96% variance (ΔR2 =0.0096, F=3.38 p < .05), so the POS has a
negative and significant influence on the relationship between the two variables, as the
subordinates, high on POS will low on PSPF and OIP than those who are lower on POS. So the
results of study accepts the hypothesis-5
176
4.1.3.14.4 Moderation Analysis of perceived organizational Support between the relationship
of perceived role definition purposes failure and Perceived Overall Injustice
Table-42 displays the results for the relationships postulated in the Hypothesis-11 (d) as direct
effects of perceived role definition purposes failure has a significant and positive relationship (β =
.5309, p < .05) as compared to perceived organizational support which has a significant negative
impact on overall injustice perception (β = -.3861, p < .05). Age gender, education and current
experience were entered as control variables in first step. The results showed that age (β = -.0680, p
>.05), gender (β = .1014, p >.05) has no significant effects on OIP. However, education (β = .2938,
p < .05) is significantly and positively while current experience (β = -.1887, p < .05) negatively
influence the oip when entered with role definition purposes failure. For education, This can be
explained as people with more education build higher overall injustice perception when role
definition purposes failure occurs or people have lesser job clarity and employee with more
experience on current job display lower overall injustice perception when role definition purposes
failure occurs. The moderation analysis for perceived organizational support between perceived
administrative purposes failure and overall injustice perception using the Model-1 in Process shows
an overall model fit (F=31.77, p=.0000) accounting for 34.79% of variance in overall injustice
perception (R2 =.3479). The POS significantly interact with OIP (β= -.1402, p < .05). The
interaction effect of POS and OIP explained a 1.07% variance (ΔR2 =0.0107, F=5.15, p < .05), so
the results depicts a negative impact of POS between the relationship of perceived role definition
purposes and overall injustice perception, as the individuals having high POS will be low OIP than
those lower on POS. thus hypothesis-5 (d) is accepted.
177
HYPOTHESES RESULTS:
Sr. No. Hypothesis Accepted /
Rejected
Hypothesis 1(a): Perceived administrative purposes failure is negatively
related to in-role performance.
Accepted
Hypothesis 1(b): Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively
related to Retaliation
Accepted
Hypothesis 2(a): Perceived development purposes failure is negatively
related to in-role performance.
Accepted
Hypothesis 2(b): Perceived development purposes failure is positively
related to Retaliation
Accepted
Hypothesis 3(a): Perceived strategic purposes failure is negatively related
to in-role performance.
Accepted
Hypothesis 3(b): Perceived strategic purposes failure is positively to
Retaliation
Accepted
178
Hypothesis 4 (a): Perceived role definition purposes failure is negatively
related to in-role performance.
Accepted
Hypothesis 4 (b): Perceived role definition purposes failure is positively
related to Retaliation.
Accepted
Hypothesis 5(a): Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively
related to overall injustice perception.
Accepted
Hypothesis 5(b): Perceived development purposes failure is positively
related to overall injustice perception.
Accepted
Hypothesis 5(c): Perceived strategic purposes failure is positively to
overall injustice perception.
Accepted
Hypothesis 5(d): Perceived role definition purposes failure is positively
related to overall injustice perception.
Accepted
Hypothesis 6(a): Overall Injustice has a negative relationship with in-role
performance.
Accepted
Hypothesis 6(b): Overall Injustice has a positive relationship with
retaliation
Accepted
Hypothesis 7(a):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among
perceived administrative purposes failure and in-role
performance.
Rejected
179
Hypothesis 7(b):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among
perceived administrative purposes failure and retaliation
Accepted
Hypothesis 8(a):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among
perceived developmental purposes failure and in-role
performance.
Rejected
Hypothesis 8(b):
Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among
perceived developmental purposes failure and retaliation.
Accepted
Hypothesis 9(a): Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among
perceived strategic purposes failure and in-role
performance.
Rejected
Hypothesis 9(b): Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among
perceived strategic purposes failure and retaliation
Accepted
Hypothesis 10(a): Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among
perceived role definition purposes failure and in-role
performance
Rejected
Hypothesis 10(b): Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among
perceived role definition purposes failure and retaliation
Accepted
Hypothesis 11 (a): POS will moderate the relation between perceived
Administrative purposefulness failure and overall
injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an
employee with low perceived organizational support than
the individual feeling high organizational support.
Accepted
180
Hypothesis 11 (b): POS will moderate the relation between perceived
Developmental purposefulness failure and overall
injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an
employee with low perceived organizational support than
the individual feeling high organizational support.
Accepted
Hypothesis 11 (c): POS will moderate the relation between perceived
Strategic purposefulness failure and overall injustice
perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee
with low perceived organizational support than the
individual feeling high organizational support.
Accepted
Hypothesis 11 (d): POS will moderate the relation between perceived Role
Definition purposefulness failure and overall injustice
perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee
with low perceived organizational support than the
individual feeling high organizational support.
Accepted
181
5. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of study was to test the link between performance appraisal purposes failure
(Administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition) and In-role performance and
retaliation. Based on the justice theory, the mediating effect of overall injustice perception was
studied between the dependent and independent variable. The moderating role of perceived
organizational support POS between the relationship of performance appraisal purposes failure
(Administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition) and overall injustice perception. The
study uses the organizational justice theory to explain the relationship among study variables.
5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDING:
This research used time-lagged design with self and peer reported data set from the employees. The
research used a comprehensive survey based on a sample size of 380 respondents from various
occupational groups of civil service of Pakistan. This study has investigated and confirmed that
perceived administrative purposes failure, perceived developmental purposes failure, perceived
strategic purposes failure and perceived role definition purposes failure are significant predictors of
overall injustice perception, which mediates between hypothesized relationships and predicts the
182
in-role performance and retaliation. It also examined the moderating role of perceived
organizational support.
This research found that perceived overall injustice can be predicted by all facets of performance
appraisal purposefulness failure (e.g. administrative, developmental, Strategic and Role definition).
Furthermore, the results also showed that perceived overall injustice can negatively predict the in-
role performance and positively to retaliation among employees. Most importantly, this study found
that perceived organizational jus overall injustice has a mediating effect on the relationship
between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation,
which has not been examined in previous studies. These findings add to our understanding of how
PA-related HRM activities contribute to employee perceptions of overall injustice and which can
increase the retaliation in a number of ways, as explained in more detail below.
The findings of the present study also provide strong support for previous works which found that
employee complaints that most PAs are ineffective, and in response they decrease their
performance (Latham et al., 2005; Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014) and increased level of
retaliation. The study also confirms the moderation of POS between different facets of performance
appraisal failure and overall injustice as moderator which is consistent with previous researches
like Treglown and colleagues, (2018) studied POS as moderator between dark personality and
intention to quit and argued that such moderations may alter the employees’ subsequent work
attitudes in terms of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. However,
the Moderation of POS between the several facets of performance appraisal failure and overall
injustice perceptions has not investigated earlier, so this study provide the empirical evidence for
this moderation. Finally, and most importantly, no research has yet investigated whether overall
injustice perceptions act as a possible mediator in the relationship between different facets of
183
Performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation. The present
results provide empirical support suggesting that employee perceptions of overall injustice are
responsible for the impact of different facets of Performance appraisal purposefulness failure on in-
role performance, however for retaliation mediation of overall injustice is not proved. In other
words, the failure of different purposes of performance appraisal affects in-role performance
through perceived organizational justice
5.1.1 Summary of Results of Reliability and Validity
The inter item reliability of instrument was measured and the reliability statistics were found to be
acceptable range (.84 for Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure, .84 for Perceived
Developmental purposefulness failure, .91 Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure, .95 Role
definition purposefulness failure, .95 Overall injustice perception, .84 for Perceived Organizational
Support, .90 for loyalty, .88 for In-Role Performance, and .84 for Retaliation). to ensure the
construct reliability of data composite reliability was calculated ranged from (.85 for Perceived
Administrative purposefulness failure, .89 for Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure, .88
Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure, .92 Role definition purposefulness failure, .96 Overall
injustice perception, .83 for Perceived Organizational Support, .89 for In-Role Performance, and
.92 for Retaliation). The convergent and discriminant validity was confirmed using goodness of fit
model and model consistency during confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
5.1.2 Hypothesis Testing:
184
To test the hypothesized relationship between the study variables was analyzed using
structural equation modeling (SEM) technique. The relationship between perceived administrative
purposes failure and overall injustice perceptions, perceived developmental purposes failure
overall injustice perception, perceived strategic purposes failure and overall injustice perception
perceived role definition purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses were studied
separately. Andrew Hayes (2013) model-1was used to study the moderating effect of perceived
organizational support on the direct relationship of different dimensions of performance appraisal
purposefulness failure and Overall injustice perception responses.
The results showed a negative significant relationship between Perceived administrative purposes
failure, Perceived developmental purposes failure, Perceived strategic Purposes failure and
Perceived role definition purposes failure and In-role performance and a positive relationship with
retaliation. The results are consistent with prior research, as it showed that the perceived failure to
performance appraisal occurs for mainly two reasons e.g. dissatisfaction or non-acceptance of
appraisal system and unfairness perception about the system. . For example, bulk of researches i.e.
Kondrasuk, JN, (2011); Hannay, M., (2010); Latham, GP, Heslin & D. Vande Walle, PA (2005)
pointed out that an organization may use a developed performance evaluation system, but if the
system is not accepted and supported by employees, its effectiveness will eventually be limited.
Similarly, perceived unfairness is another important concern for the individual. As research
suggests that employee, respond to perceived injustice in varying ways like employees are inclined
to blame the someone, system or procedure for the fault and displays the appropriate behavior
(silence, aggression, retaliation etc.) according to the situation (Burge, 2005). However, Coetzee in
(2005) identified various factors determining the employees behavior at the perception of injustice
185
for instance, level of felt injustice, past and expected future perceptions of injustice and individuals
dispositional factors e.g. willingness to retribution, propensity to encounter or avoid the
problematic situation. Likewise, Turnley and Feldman in (1999) enlisted few potential responses of
injustice: exit bеhaviour, (negative and active) e.g. employee decides to leave the organization;
withdrawal bеhaviour (negative and passive) e.g. employee decides to reduce his / her contribution;
voice bеhaviour (positive and active) e.g. raises voice against injustice and loyalty bеhaviour
(positive and passive) e.g. decides to ignore and rationalize injustice. Therefore, the positive
relation between failure of various facets of performance appraisal and retaliation might be a result
of dissatisfaction from Performance appraisal system or perceived unfairness in adopted
procedures. The two fundamental principles of fairness theory of Folger and Cropanzano (1998)
also supports the results as accountability suggests at the perception of injustice, the victim pursues
to fix the blame of offense by determining whether any negative event occur e.g. failure of
performance appraisal purposes. Second, if there is some control violation occur by the supervisor
and lastly the results are based on some violation in fair and ethical standards. Second principle is
counterfactual thinking, in which, an individual can (cognitively) alter a part of an event and
evaluate the consequence or result in a situation of that type. Therefore, the negative relation
between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and positive relation
of retaliation is due to counterfactual thinking of individual or his persuasiveness to blame someone
/ procedure for the injustice.
The results of this empirical study has indicated that determinants of performance appraisal
purposes failure (administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition purposefulness failure)
has a positive impact on overall injustice perceptions. As literature suggests that the administrative
186
purposes of performance appraisal includes the use of PA for compensation management,
promotion of decision making, retention of termination decisions, and identification of individual
performance, redundancy, and poor performance. The Development purposes include identifying
individual training needs, providing performance feedback, identifying transfers and allocations,
and determining the pros and cons of people. As Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, (2012)
suggests, evaluation is a sensitive issue that often triggers negative psychological reactions such as
resistance, denial, aggression, or depression, especially if the evaluation is negative. Therefore, a
high degree of knowledge of failure to use appraisal purposes may lead to a negative assessment of
the appraisal (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000). It is also suggested that evaluation is often negative
(DeNisi & Murphy, 2017). For example, (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000) argues that a salary
increment can even lead to negative feelings if the increase is considered unfair or minimal.
Similarly, other publications on wage satisfaction show that compensation relative to others is
related to employee compensation systems, evaluation systems and labor attitudes (eg Lowery,
Petty and Thompson, 1995). In fact, the impact of perceived evaluation on employee responses
may depend on the impartiality of the PA process (ie, procedural justice) and the outcome (justice
of distribution) to produce a positive response when there is a sense of justice and injustice
perception (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000, Rowland & Hall, 2012). The justice literature shows that
individual exhibit more severe responses towards cognitive reactions rather than behavioral
reactions when deals with injustice. Fairness theory also suggests that in response to failure of
performance appraisal purposes the perception of injustice becomes stronger based on
accountability (blame) and counterfactual thinking (interpretations of negative event).
187
The results of hypothesis-3 (a and b) depicts a positive and significant relationship with strategic
purposes of performance appraisal failure and injustice perception. Normally Strategic purposes
involves planning for individuals; accessing the training needs; estimating the goal achievement
motives; measuring personnel system; reinforcing authority; structure; and identification of
development needs in the organization and if the organization fails to implement its strategy in true
sense it can damage the justice perception of employees. The relationship can be explained using
the Goal-setting theory explains that individual’s behaviors are goal directed and if goals are
ambiguous and does not linked with organizational strategy; it will harm the justice perceptions of
employees. For example Caruth & Humphreys, (2008)argued that the execution of an effective
strategy has emerged as key source to achieve a sustainable competitive edge in modern
organizations; and without having a consistent effort to align and implement strategy in various
functions of organization (i.e. performance appraisal), even a well-planned strategy may be
ineffectual. Performance appraisal are the critical organizational tools used to measure the
organizational performance and the performance may only be evaluated when measured with
standards or objectives, so strategic aspects of performance appraisal are crucial to for the justice
related [perception of individuals. Michlitsch (2000) explained that Strategic implementation of
performance goals can be accomplished through the people with high-performance.
The organizational justice theory suggests that maintaining justice in procedures adopted for
performance appraisal appears to be critical to maintain the legitimacy at institutional level because
the individual receives certain outcomes in result of appraisal decisions. Rowland & Hall, (2012)
discussed that organizations have certain goals and to achieve these goals they have to build a
culture where focus on employee growth can be enhanced through designing appraisals focused on
188
that purpose. The performance appraisal depicts the organizational value system. Suppose in case
of the appraisal’s contribution in the achievement of organizational goals, the organization requires
to have a clear understandings of causes of appraisal ‘why’ perspective and the way to fit it with
strategy and organizational culture ‘how’ perspective. He further suggests that in this case there is
a need of a fair Appraisal system and also it seems to be fair. There can be Conflicts between
appraisers and appraises during the appraisal process because of having less clear appraisal criteria
(Kim, 2016).
Similarly the research shows that raters and subordinates reacts negatively if there is a difference in
indicated purposes of performance appraisal and the perceived outcomes ( (Ikramullah, Shah,
Khan, Ul Hassan, & Zaman, 2012; Gabris & Ihrke, 2001). Research also suggests that if individuals
are not appropriately rewarded (promotion, pay, recognition) for meeting or exceeding the
performance standards, then it will weeken the performance appraisal and career advancement
linkage (Ikramullah, Shah, Khan, Ul Hassan, & Zaman, 2012).
The results shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between role definition
purposes and injustice perceptions. According to Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, (2007) Role
definition explains the degree to which different job behaviors have a clear definition of
employee’s social environment. To what extent employee’s role expectations are clear and
understandable; individuals validate their abilities and the efforts they put to meet with
performance expectations. However, if employees are not well aware from management
expectations of performance then they will not put desired efforts and abilities in workplace
behavior. Therefore the role definition aspect of performance appraisal depicts that it is not only
189
important to have the willingness to perform a job (motivation) but also the knowing what is
expected from you on the job and how and when to apply the required abilities. Kyendibaiza, F.N.
(2009) found there is significant relationship between role clarity and justice, the findings suggest
that if the job roles will not be clearly defined the individual justice perceptions will be damage so
the results of the study are incongruence with previous researches.
Results of study supported the mediating role of overall injustice perception for Retaliation but
does not support the mediation of overall injustice perception for In-role Performance. The results
of the study supports the studies, which explore the injustice perception as mediator. For instance,
Piccoli and De Witte (2015) examined Distributive injustice as mediator between the job insecurity
and emotional exhaustion and found a positive and significant results. Cheng S., (2014) also found
the justice / injustice as mediator between between administrative performance appraisal practices
and organizational commitment. Similarly, Zhang & Agarwal, (2009) The mediating roles of
organizational justice on the relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an
investigation in China. Previous research also inclined to examine justice as a mediator among
different attitudes and behaviors such as Bagdadli, Roberson & Paoletti, 2006; Kim & Kim 2013;
Gillet, Fouquereau & Bonnaud-Antignac, 2013and Shih Yu (Cheryl) Cheng, 2014).
Moreover, the results showed that overall injustice perception mediates between all purposes of
performance appraisal (e.g. perceived administrative purposes failure, perceived developmental
purposes failure, perceived strategic purposes failure and role definition purposes failure) and
retaliation. The previous research (Ambrose, Wo, & Griffith, 2015; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b;
Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002) showed the mediation of justice towards retaliatory
behavior.
190
The results of study for overall injustice perception and in-role performance showed a negative
relationship. The study depicts that injustice enhance the in-role performance. Therefore according
to the justice theory, a perceived failure of performance appraisal purposes will harm the justice
perception of individual and resultantly he / she decreases their contribution towards the
organization and in role performance level decreases. Results of the study also supports the positive
relationship between overall injustice perception and retaliation. Prior justice research shows that
Perceived injustice on workplace may have severe consequences on individual’s cognitions (e.g.
sense making), emotions (e.g. anger, guilt, shame), behaviors (e.g. retaliation) and employee health
(Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009). Therefore, because of perceived injustice in the distribution of
performance appraisal rewards, information, tasks, assignment, decision making may enhance the
perception of failure of performance appraisal purposes and may foster the individual to show
retaliation behavior at workplace.
The results showed that perceived organizational support moderated the relationship between
different performance appraisal purposes failure (e.g. perceived administrative purposes failure,
perceived developmental purposes failure, strategic purposes failure and role definition purposes
failure) and injustice perceptions, the relationship postulated in hypothesis-5-(a, b, c, d), such that there
is more positive relationship when an individual had high level of perceived organizational support
than when he or she had a low level of perceived organizational support.
Generally, this is the first research that is examining the moderating role of perceived organizational
support in the context of perceived performance appraisal purposes failure e.g. perceived administrative
purposes failure, perceived developmental purposes failure, strategic purposes failure and role
191
definition purposes failure) and overall injustice perceptions. The results of the study are
consistent with existing theories of organizational justice. The justice Literature provided the evidence
that all justice dimension are related with perceived organizational support, such as Moorman, Blakely, &
Niehoff, (1998) discussed that Fair procedures should make a significant contribution to perceived
organizational support because procedures are generally considered under the control of the organization.
The distribution justice implies the equitable distribution of results, procedural justice is related to the
process used to determine the distribution of results, and interactive justice refers the individual is treated
during decision-making treatment of organization. The research showed distributive and interactional
justice are less related to perceived organizational support than procedural justice and therefore may be
more attributable to specific events (Kurtessis, et al., Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic
Evaluation of Organizational Support Theory, 2015). According to the fairness theory, if individual
perceives supervisor as offender for wrongdoing after deciding accountability and counterfactual thinking
then perceived organizational support (an organizational factor) may moderate the relationship between
performance appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perceptions. Moreover, under an uncertain
environment with greater pressure on job, the employees are more likely to perceive positive
organizational outcomes like fairness reactions, perceived equity, supervisory support and trust on
employer negatively. Such situations may foster the employees to build cognitions that support the
organizational actions favourable to the organization and not beneficial for the employees in
particular (Kurtessis, et al., Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of
Organizational Support Theory, 2015).
In the present context where we examined a specific form of social exchange, namely perceived
organizational support, we found a similar effect, such that individuals with higher perceived
192
organizational support were more inclined to build injustice perceptions in response to organizations
failure to achieve the purposes of performance appraisal , But such failure is inconsistent with their
faith in organizations policies, which resultantly motivate them to minimize the injustice perception and
restore their positive view.
5.2 STUDY CONTRIBUTION TO THE CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE:
This study provides a reference for the existing literature in the field of human resource
management and organizational behavior, the failure of the purposes of performance appraisal,
and the overall injustice perception. The main contributions of study are discussed below:
First, this research extends the performance appraisal literature by discussing all four purposes of
performance appraisal, which has not previously discussed together. Previous research evidence
has only suggested two dimensions (e,g administrative and developmental purposes) of
performance appraisal. Whereas, the other two namely role-definition and strategic purposes
remained relatively untouched. Therefore, this current study covered this research gap. Moreover,
this research has introduced the concept of performance appraisal purposefulness failure (a
negative aspect of performance appraisal purposes) and studied its impact on important
organizational outcomes (e.g. In-role Performance and Retaliation) which has not previously
studied in the context of performance appraisal or its purposefulness. The findings of this study
depicts that performance appraisal purposefulness failure predicts the in-role performance and
retaliation positively, whereas a negative relationship with in-role performance was proposed.
The second contribution of this research was to introduce perceived organizational support (POS)
as moderator between the purposefulness failure of performance appraisal. Several studies
193
evaluated the POS as moderator among different organizational variables like perceived job
autonomy and turnover intention, between the LMX, job satisfaction, and job performance,
between Organizational Stressors and Organizational Citizenship bеhaviour, between Emotional
Labor / Outcome Relations, between organizational justice and objective measurement of
cardiovascular health. However, this research has testified POS as moderator between the
relationship of various facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failurе and perceived overall
injustice, which was not previously studied. The findings of current study proved that POS
moderates the proposed relationships.
Another contribution of this study was to test the overall injustice as mediator between the various
facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure and In-role performance and retaliation,
which has not discussed in prior studies. Research on organizational justice has been around for
about thirty years, and the dimensions of organizational justice are still being discussed, from two-
factor to three-factor or four-factor models, as well as the recent model of integrated justice
perception (Colquitt, 2012). The previous literature is evident that organizational justice/injustice
perceptions serves as mediator among different organizational variables. This research tested the
overall injustice as mediator and the findings of the study have highlighted overall injustice
perceptions as a partial mediator in the mentioned relationship that has not been investigated in the
previous literature.
The study also have Methodological contributes as it has used time lag design, as most of existing
researches in the context are cross sectional. Moreover, the study measured the in-role performance
on peer reported responses.
194
5.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The research findings have some practical implications for businesses; particularly it suggests two
important consequences of performance appraisal purposes failure e.g. in-role performance and
retaliation. The study suggest the managers to carefully apply the performance appraisal to avoid its
purposefulness failure. As there is a reform pressure in public sector particularly in civil service,
performance appraisal failure might lead to injustice perception that may instigate the negative
attitudinal and behavioral problems in employees. Retaliation as a consequent for performance
appraisal purposefulness failure may be detrimental for the organization. Therefore, the businesses,
particularly in public sector should make comprehensive strategies to avoid perceived performance
appraisal purposefulness failurе. An understanding of PA purposes will enable the managers to
distinguish between various purposes and rate the employee accordingly.
The findings also suggest that managers should take care of employees overall injustice perceptions
as their goal and evaluate employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal mechanisms
regularly through, for example, 360 feedback system.. The study provides the insights to managers
how employees accumulate various injustice perceptions and respond toward organization. This
evaluation can build mutual trust and commitment between the employee and their supervisors that
will come in handy when failures arise.
The organizations should make the policies that can enhance the perceived organizational support,
as study suggests that a high POS can mitigate the injustice perceptions and its negative
consequences.
195
It is essential for businesses to have a performance appraisal system consisting on all the necessary
characteristics important to achieve the organizational strategy (e.g. administrative purposes,
developmental, role definition and strategic purposes) and targeting to all stakeholders including
managers, subordinates, and top management, who have strategic responsibilities.
5.4 STUDY LIMITATIONS:
The results of the present study should be interpreted with some important limitations in mind. For
example, this research collected data from 400 respondents only across different occupational
groups, however it would be desirable to replicate these finding using a larger sample. Secondly,
there is no direct scale available to study performance appraisal purposefulness failure and overall
injustice perceptions so the proxy is used for anchoring. It should be noted that in the fixed-effects
model, due to the measurement error of independent variables, the attenuation problem may occur.
These errors cause the estimated coefficients to move downward, resulting in a small coefficient
(Angrist & Pischke, 2008). Therefore, the results given here may be interpreted as the lower limit
of the real effect. In addition, in large time lag surveys, due to time and budget constraints, shorter
measures of overall injustice perception applied may be a cause of greater measurement error and
lower internal consistency. Gosling, Rentfrow and Swann (2003) point out that the use of short
scales may be inevitable in surveys with limited time and budget, however, even though shorter
scales can achieve acceptable psychometric properties such as retest reliability and discriminant
validity, previous studies have also reported significant differences comparing with larger scales in
relations of reliability (Rammstedt & John, 2007). Further research should use longer scales of
overall injustice perception to confirm whether insignificant mediation effects of injustice
perceptions are due to low-scale consistency.
196
5.5 FUTURE RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Although this study is based on a large, representative time-based data set, there are still some
limitations that provide some avenues for future research. First, we have no information to assess
whether it is based entirely on subjective or objective performance indicators or both. Therefore,
further research may analyze whether the results presented here are moderated by the objectivity of
the process.
Second, I have discussed how potential appraisal purposes failure may affect in-role performance
and retaliation and propose more detailed analysis as a potential channel. Further research should
explore in greater detail further mechanisms to facilitate the assessment of the impact on In-role
performance and retaliation or some other behaviors or attitudes, as well as by collecting
longitudinal data that can be used to assess the background of the process (eg, goal clarity or
underlying mechanisms).
Third, the current study tested on overall injustice perception as mediator but there are other
variables that are needed to be investigated in future research other attitudinal, cognitive and
motivational variables can be examined to better recognition of underlying mechanisms of in-role
performance as well as retaliatory behavior among employees like negative emotions or
opportunism, job stress, political intentions, and justice sensitivity. Similarly, this research
examined POS as moderator; however, other moderators like trust, justice climate, motivation,
uncertainty and LMX etc. may be tested in future researches.
Fourth, the study showed a negative linkage between injustice perceptions and in-role performance,
so the relationship should be tested in some other settings or even with some larger sample to
generalize it for Pakistani Society. Moreover, the mediating effects of injustice perception was not
197
fully proved particularly its relation with retaliation was very weak, as compare to in-role
performance so it can also be testified in future studies with other related variables like CWB.
Another important future direction of research is to independently validate and test the Urdu
version of the instrument because the translated Urdu version is used to supplement the original
version so that the instrument easily understands the bilingual object.
5.6 CONCLUSION:
Summing up the research, the PA researchers have suggested four performance appraisal
purposes: administrative, developmental, and strategic and role definition. However, to the best of
our knowledge, these purposes have never been applied simultaneously particularly in failure
sense to develop a framework of injustice cognitions of PA systems’ influences on
organizational outcomes. Building on the justice theory, the present study proposed a framework
revealing a holistic view of all consequences of the f a i l u r e o f PA systems in an integrative
manner.
Due to the lack of proper theory on the effectiveness of performance appraisal systems, this
research attempts for the first time to propose a comprehensive framework for knowing the
underlying mechanisms behind the ineffectiveness of performance appraisal systems in public
sector of Pakistan based on the injustice perception framework.
198
6. REFERENCE
Abu-Doleh, J., & Weir, D. (2007). Dimensions of performance appraisal systems in
Jordanian private and public organizations. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(1), 75-84. doi:10.1080/09585190601068334
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequality in social exchange. (L. Berkowitz, Ed.) Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 267299.
Afzali, M., Nouri, J. M., Ebadi, A., Khademolhoseyni, S. M., & Rejeh, N. (2017).
Perceived Distributive Injustice, the Key Factor in Nurse’s Disruptive Behaviors:
A Qualitative Study. Journal of Caring Sciences, 6(3), 237-247.
doi:10.15171/jcs.2017.023
Alam, S. M., Watson, D. A., & Alvi, M. S. (2008). Human resource management for
good governance: Building local government capacity for effective service
delivery. Faisalabad, Pakistan: City District Government, Faisalabad.
Ambrose, M. L. (2009a). Assessing roadblocks to justice: A model of fair behavior in
organizations. (J. J. Martocchio, Ed.) Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 28, 219-263.
Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice
conceptually distinct? In J. &. Greenberg, Handbook of Organizational Justice
(pp. 59-84). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009b). The role of overall justice judgments in
organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(2), 491-500.
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace:
The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 89, 947-965.
Ambrose, M. L., Wo, D. H., & Griffith, M. D. (2015). Overall Justice: Past, Present, and
Future. In R. S. Cropanzano, & M. L. Ambrose, The Oxford Handbook of Justice
in the Workplace (pp. 109-135). New York: Oxford University Press.
Aslam, U., Ilyas, M., Imran, M. K., & Rahman, U. U. (2016). Detrimental effects of
cynicism on organizational change: an interactive model of organizational
cynicism (a study of employees in public sector organizations). Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 29(4), 580-598.
Aycan, Z. (2001). Human resource management in Turkey: Current issues and future
challenges. International Journal of Manpower, 22(3), 252-260. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1108/01437720110398347
199
Barclay, L. J., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). Healing the Wounds of Organizational Injustice:
Examining the Benefits of Expressive Writing. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(2), 511-523. doi:10.1037/a0013451
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-82. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3806354
Baruch, Y. (1996). Self performance appraisal vs direct-manager appraisal: A case of
congruence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(6), 50-65.
Basavanthapa, B. T. (2003). Nursing education. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical
Publishers.
Becker, T. E. (2005, July). Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in
Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations.
Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289.
doi:10.1177/1094428105278021
Beugré, C. (2007). A Cultural Perspective of Organizational Justice (Illustrated ed.).
IAP.
Bilal, A. R., Rafi, N., & Khalid, S. (2017, April). Detrimental Causes and Consequences
of Organizational Injustice in The Workplace: Evidence From Public Sector
Organizations. Pakistan Business Review, 114-137.
Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Employee Satisfaction with Performance
Appraisals and Appraisers: The Role of Perceived Appraisal Use. HUMAN
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, 11(3).
Boswell, W., & Boudreau, J. (2002). Separating the developmental and evaluative
performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 391-412.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining
reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.
Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining
reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.
Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Oxford University press.
Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st Century Human Resources
Function: It's the Talent, Stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24(4), 17. Retrieved
200
from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/7716999/21st-century-human-
resources-function-talent-stupid
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives.
Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western Publishing Company.
Caruth, D. L., & Humphreys, J. H. (2008). Performance appraisal: essential
characteristics for strategic control. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(3), 24-32.
doi:DOI 10.1108/13683040810900377
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.
Cheng, K. H., & Cascio, W. (2009). Performance-appraisal beliefs of Chinese employees
in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. International Journal of Selection &
Assessment, 17(3), 329-333.
Cheng, S. Y. (2014). The mediating role of organizational justice on the relationship
between administrative performance appraisal practices and organizational
commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8),
1131-1148. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.816864
Chiang, F., & Birtch, T. (2010). Appraising Performance across Borders: An Empirical
Examination of the Purposes and Practices of Performance Appraisal in a Multi-
Country Context. Journal Of Management Studies. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486
Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2018, January). The roles of informational
unfairness and political climate in the relationship between dispositional envy and
job performance in Pakistani organizations. Journal of Business Research, 82,
117-126. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.006
Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-
directed behavior. Research in personnel and human resources management,
10(2), 121-185.
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.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.130
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). he role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 86, 278-321.
Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice; A construct
validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
201
Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? (J.
G. Colquitt, Ed.) Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., & Ng, Y. K. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A metaanalytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 861, 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012).
Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or
trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1-15.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., &
Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic
test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98(2), 199-236.
Colquitt, J. A., Zipayb, K. P., Lynchc, J. W., & Outlaw, R. (2018). Bringing “The
Beholder” center stage: On the propensity to perceive overall fairness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 159-177.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.08.001
Cook, J., & Crossman, A. (2004). Satisfaction with performance appraisal systems: A
study of role perceptions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(5), 526-541.
Cropanzano, R. (2001). ustice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (illustrated ed.,
Vol. 2). (R. Cropanzano, Ed.) Psychology Press.
Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and Distributive Justice Are More
Similar Than You Think: A Monistic Perspective And Research Agenda. In J.
Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano, Advances in Organizational Justice (pp. 119-151).
Stanford, CA: Standford University press.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The Management of
Organizational Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34-48.
DeNisi, A. S., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2000). Design performance appraisal systems to
improve performance. (E. A. Locke, Ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance Appraisal and Performance
Management: 100 Years of Progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1-13.
doi:doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085
Duke, A. B., Goodman, J. M., Treadway, D. C., & Breland, J. W. (2009). Perceived
Organizational Support as a Moderator of Emotional Labor/Outcomes
Relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1013-1034.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00470.x
202
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2013). Perceived job autonomy and turnover intention: The
moderating role of perceived supervisor support. European Journal of Work and
organizational Psychology, 22(5), 563-573. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.667215
Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance
appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12(4), 555-578.
doi:doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00070-0
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support From the Top: Supervisors’ Perceived
Organizational Support as a Moderator of Leader–Member Exchange to
Satisfaction and Performance Relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(2), 321-330. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.321
Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance
evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship
components. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 146-163. Retrieved
from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.006
Flint, D. H. (1999). The role of organizational justice in multi-source performance
appraisal: Theory based applications and directions for research. Human Resource
Management Review, 9(1), 1-20.
Gabris, G. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2000). Improving employee acceptance toward
performance appraisal and merit pay systems: The role of leadership credibility.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 41-53.
Giangreco, A., Carugati, A., Sebastiano, A., & Tamimi, H. A. (2012). War outside,
ceasefire inside: An analysis of the performance appraisal system of a public
hospital in a zone of conflict. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(1), 161-170.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340-342. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.340
Greenberg, J. (1987, January 1). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories.
Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22. doi:10.5465/AMR.1987.4306437
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal
of Management, 16(2), 399-432. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208
Greenberg, J. (1993). The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational
Classes of Organizational Justice. Justice in the workplace(4), 79-103. Retrieved
from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237106635_The_Social_Side_of_Fairnes
s_Interpersonal_and_Informational_Classes_of_Organizational_Justice
203
Guest, D. E. (2004). The Psychology of the Employment Relationship: An Analysis
Based on the Psychological Contract. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 541-555.
Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00187.x
Harrington, J. R., & Lee, J. H. (2015). What Drives Perceived Fairness of Performance
Appraisal? Exploring the Effects of Psychological Contract Fulfillment on
Employees’ Perceived Fairness of Performance Appraisal in U.S. Federal
Agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 214-238. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014564071
Hauenstein, N. M., McGonigle, T., & Flinder, S. W. (2001). A meta-analysis of the
relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice: Implications for
justice research. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13(1), 39-56.
Hayes. (2017, July 22). Are there limitations when using AMOS or the PROCESS macro
for SPSS to test for moderation? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_limitations_when_using_AMOS_or
_the_PROCESS_macro_for_SPSS_to_test_for_moderation
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. . New York: NY: Guilford.
Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2009). Fair Today, Fair Tomorrow? A Longitudinal
Investigation of Overall Justice Perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1185-1199.
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contract and organizational
citizenship behavior in China: investigating generalizability and instrumentality.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 311-321. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.
Ikramullah, M., Shah, B., Khan, S., Ul Hassan, F., & Zaman, T. (2012). Purposes of
Performance Appraisal System: A Perceptual Study of Civil Servants in District
Dera Ismail Khan Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management,
7(3), 142.
Iqbal, M. Z. (2012). EXPANDED DIMENSIONS OF THE PURPOSES AND USES.
Asian Academy of Management Journal, 17(1), 41-63.
Iqbal, M. Z., Akbar, S., & Budhwar, P. (2014). Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal:
An Integrated Framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1-24.
doi:10.1111/ijmr.12050
Iqbal, M. Z., Akbar, S., Budhwar, P., & Shah, S. A. (2019). Effectiveness of performance
appraisal: Evidence on the utilization criteria. Journal of Business Research, 101,
285-299. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.035
204
Iqbal, M. Z., Rehan, M., Fatima, A., & Nawab, S. (2017). The Impact of Organizational
Justice on Employee Performance in Public Sector Organization of Pakistan.
International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(3), 1-6.
doi:10.4172/2162-6359.1000431
Jain, A. K., Giga, S. I., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). Perceived organizational support as a
moderator in the relationship between organisational stressors and organizational
citizenship behaviors. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21(3),
313-334.
Jawahar, I. M. (2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal
reactions. Journal of Labor Research, 28(4), 735-744. doi:10.1007/s12122-007-
9014-1
Kampkötter, P. (2016). Performance appraisals and job satisfaction. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-25.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1109538
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley.
Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=8RRHAAAAMAAJ&pgis=1
Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: measurement,
modeling, and method bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708-723.
Retrieved from Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal
reactions: measurement, modeling, and methttp://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.85.5.708
Khan, F. (2009, March 18). Impact of Afghan War on Pakistan. Retrieved 2016, from
http://www.pkhope.com/impact-of-afghan-war-on-pakistan/
Kim, S. E., & Rubianty, D. (2011). Perceived Fairness of Performance Appraisals in the
Federal Government: Does It Matter? Review of Public Personnel Administration,
31, 329-348. doi:10.1177/0734371X11428903
Kim, T., & Holzer, M. (2015). Public Employees and Performance Appraisal: A Study of
Antecedents to Employees’ Perception of the Process. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 1-24. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0734371X14549673
Ko, J., & Hur, S. (2014). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and
managerial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on
social exchange theory. Public Administration Review, 74(2), 176-187.
Konow, J. (2009). Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis
of justice. Social Choice and Welfare, 33(1), 101-127. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0348-2
205
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet Henrica,
C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual Frameworks of Individual Work
Performance. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856-
866. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763
Korsgaard, A. M., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation:
The Role of lnstrumental and Non-Instrumental Voice in Performance Appraisal
Discussions. Journal of Management, 21(4), 657-669.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C.
S. (2015). Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of
Organizational Support Theory. Journal of Management. doi:DOI:
10.1177/0149206315575554
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C.
S. (2015). Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of
Organizational Support Theory. Journal of Management, 20(10), 1-31.
doi:10.1177/0149206315575554
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87(1), 72-
107.
Landy, F. J., Barnes, J., & Murphy, K. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and
accuracy of performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751-754.
Le Roy, J. (2010). Sentiment d’injustice et comportements contreproductifs au travail:
déterminants cognitifs, contextuels et dispositionnels. Paris Ouest: Thèse de
Doctorat en psychologie.
Lee, H.-R., Murrmann, S. K., Murrmann, K. F., & Kim, K. (2010). Organizational Justice
as a Mediator of the Relationships Between Leader-Member Exchange and
Employees' Turnover Intentions. Journal of Hospitility and Marketing
Management, 19(2), 97-114. doi:10.1080/19368620903455237
Lerner, M., & Miller, D. (1978). Just World research and the attribution processes:
Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond Fairness: A Theory of
Allocation Preferences. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond
Fairness: A Theory of Allocation Preferences. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/245584272_Beyond_Fairness_A_Theory
_of_Allocation_Preferences.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of Leader-Member Exchange:
An Empirical Assessment through Scale Development. Journal of Management,
24(1), 43-72. doi:10.1177/014920639802400105
206
Lin, Y.-C., & Kellough, J. E. (2018). Performance Appraisal Problems in the Public
Sector: Examining Supervisors’ Perceptions. Public Personnel Management, 1-
24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018801045
Lind, E. A. (2001a). Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in
organizational relations. In J. &. Greenberg, Advances in organizational justice
(pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lind, E. A. (2001b). Thinking critically about the justice judgments. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 220-226.
Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of
uncertainty management. (B. M. Kramer, Ed.) Research in organizational
behavior, 24, 181-222.
Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of
uncertainty management. In B. M. Kramer, Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 24, pp. 181-223). Boston: Elsevier.
Long, C. S., Kowang, T. O., Khairuzzaman, W., Ismail, W., & Rasid, S. Z. (2013). A
Review on Performance Appraisal System: An Ineffective and Destructive
Practice. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(7), 887-891.
doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.14.7.2174
Longenecker, C. (1997). Why managerial performance appraisals are ineffective: Causes
and lessons. Journal of Career Development International, 2(5), 212-218.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the
indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. MacKinnon,
D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limiMultivariate
Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
Mani, B. G. (2002). Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case
study. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 141-159.
Masterson, S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. (2000). Integrating justice and
social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748.
McEvoy, G. M. (1990). Public sector managers' reactions to appraisals by subordinates.
Public Personnel Management, 19(2), 201-212.
Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2017). What motivates deviant behavior in the
workplace? An examination of the mechanisms by which procedural injustice
affects deviance. Motivation and Emotion, 41(1), 51-68.
doi:doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9584-4
207
Milliman, J., Nason, S., Zhu, C., & De Cieri, H. (2002). An exploratory assessment of the
purposes of performance appraisals in North and Central America and the Pacific
Rim. Human Resource Management, 41, 87-102.
Motowildo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A Theory of Individual
Differences in Task and Contextual Performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-
83. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1
Mulvaney, M. A., McKinney, W. R., & Grodsky, R. (2012). Appraisai System for
Municipai Agencies: A Case Study. Public Personnei Management, 41(3).
Muqadas, F., Rehman, M., Aslam, U., & Rahman, U. U. (2017). Exploring the
Challenges, Trends, and Issues for Knowledge Sharing: A Study on Employees in
Public Sector Universities. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
System, 47(1), 2-15.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,
Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.vn/books/about/Understanding_Performance_Appraisal.
html?id=CnpuE09Vit0C&pgis=1
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance Appraisal: An Organizational
Perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy
of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.
Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P., & Panayotopoulou, L. (2011). Organizational justice and
employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 35(8), 826-840. doi:10.1108/03090591111168348
Pooyan, A., & Eberhardt, B. J. (1989). Correlates of performance appraisal satisfaction
among supervisory and non-supervisor employees. Journal of Business Research,
19(3), 215-226. doi:DOI: 10.1016/0148-2963(89)90020-9
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for
indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77-98.
Probst, T. M., Petitta, L., Barbaranell, C., & Austin, C. (2018). Safety-Related Moral
Disengagement in Response to Job Insecurity: Counterintuitive Effects of
Perceived Organizational and Supervisor Support. Journal of Business Ethics.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4002-3
Prowse, P., & Prowse, J. (2009). The dilemma of performance appraisal. 13(4), 69-77.
doi:10.1108/13683040911006800
208
Rineer, J. R., Truxillo, D. M., Bodner, T. B., Hammer, L. B., & Kraner, M. A. (2017).
The moderating effect of perceived organizational support on the relationships
between organizational justice and objective measures of cardiovascular health.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(3), 399-410.
doi:10.1080/1359432X.2016.1277207
Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A
technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 32(1), 89.
Roberts, G. E., & Pavlak, T. (1996). Municipal government personnel professionals and
performance appraisal: Is there consensus on the characteristics of an effective
appraisal system? Public Personnel Management, 25, 379-408.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract
breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21(5), 525-546. doi:10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::aid-job40>3.0.co;2-t
Rosen, C., Chang, C., Johnson, R., & Levy, P. (2009). Perceptions of the organizational
context and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing perspectives.
Behavior and Human. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597808000800
Rowland, C. A., & Hall, R. D. (2012). Organizational justice and performance: is
appraisal fair? EuroMed Journal of Business, 280-293. doi:DOI
10.1108/14502191211265334
Rupp, D. E., Shapiro, Folger, R., Skarlicki, D. P., & Shao, R. (2017). A critical analysis
of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for
reassessment? he Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 919-959. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0051
Saad, S. K., & Elshaer, I. A. (2017, June 05). Organizational Politics and Validity of
Layoff Decisions: Mediating Role of Distributive Justice of Performance
Appraisal. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(8), 805-828.
doi:doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1320257
Saunders, M. N., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students. Prentice Hall.
Scheuerman, H. L., Hegtvedt, K. A., & Johnson, C. (2017). “It’s Not My Fault!” Status,
Attributions, and Perceptions of Injustice: The Case of Custodians and Teachers.
Journal of Sociological Spectrum, 37(5), 299-318.
doi:doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2017.1348277
209
Schneider, B., & Klein, K. J. (1994). What is enough? A systems perspective on
individual organizational perfromance linkages. (D. H. Harris, Ed.) Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation
Modeling. New York London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Schwab, D. (2005). Research Methods for Organizational Studies. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Selvarajan, R., & Cloninger, P. (2008). The importance of accurate performance
appraisals for creating ethical organizations. The Journal of Applied Business
Research, 24(3), 39-44.
Selvarajan, T. T., & Cloninger, P. A. (2012). Can performance appraisals motivate
employees to improve performance? A Mexican study. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 23(15), 3063-3084. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637069
Sholihin, M., & Pike, R. (2009). Fairness in performance evaluation and its behavioural
consequences. Accounting and Business Research, 39(4), 397-413. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2009.9663374
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Shrout, Mediation in experimental and
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological
Methods, 7, 422-445.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: the effects
of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(3), 432-443.
Skarlicki, D., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,
procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-
443.
Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome
Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review.
Social Justice Research, 16(4), 309-341.
Steiner, D. D., Trahan, W. A., Haptonstahl, D. E., & Valérie Fointiat. (2006). The Justice
of Equity, Equality, and Need in Reward Distributions: A Comparison of French
and American Respondents. In P. u. Grenoble (Ed.), internationale de
psychologie sociale (p. 158). Retrieved August 12, 2017, from
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2006-1-page-
49.htm
210
Stephan, W. G., & Dorfman, P. W. (1989). Administrative and Developmental Functions
in Performance Appraisals: Conflict or Synergy? Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 10(1), 27-41. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1001_4
Stewart, V., & Stewart, A. (1977). Practical performance appraisal. Westmead, UK:
Gower Press.
Stone, A. M. (2015). Uncertainty Management Theory. In The International
Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 1-8). USA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Taris, T. W. (2006, October 23). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective
performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work & Stress, 20(4), 316-334.
doi:10.1080/02678370601065893
Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due
Process in Performance Appraisal: A Quasi-Experiment in Procedural Justice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 495. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.2307/2393795
Tee, E. Y., Ramis, T., Fernandez, E. F., & Paulsen, N. (2017). Responding to Injustice:
Perception, Anger, and Identification as Drivers of Collective Action. In W. J.
Zerbe, C. E. Härtel, N. M. Ashkanasy, & L. Petitta, Book Series: Research on
Emotion in Organizations (pp. 17-46). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., & Painter, D. (2006). Research in Practice: Applied
Methods for the Social Sciences (illustrated, reprint ed.). (M. J. Terre Blanche, M.
Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter, Eds.) Juta and Company Ltd.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,
N.J., 150.
Thompson, L. L. (2003). The Social Psychology of Organizational Behavior: Key
Readings (Illustrated ed.). (L. L. Thompson, Ed.) Psychology Press.
Thurston Jr, P. W., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal
practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201-228.
doi:10.1108/02683941011023712
Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An Integrative Perspective on Social Justice:
Distributive and Procedural Fairness Evaluations of Positive and Negative
Outcome Allocations. SocialJustice Research, 12(1), 39-64.
Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice:
Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome
allocations. Social Justice Research, 12(1), 39-64.
211
Tost, L. P., & Lind, E. A. (2010). SOUNDING THE ALARM: MOVING FROM
SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION TO SYSTEM CONDEMNATION IN THE
JUSTICE JUDGMENT PROCESS. In Fairness and Groups Research on
Managing Groups and Teams (Vol. 13, pp. 3-27). doi:l0.l 108/Sl534-
0856(2010)0000013004
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The Impact of
Psychological Contract Fulfillment on the Performance of In-Role and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206.
Retrieved from Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M.
(2003). The Impact of Psychological Contract Fulfillment on the Performance of
Inhttp://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900204
Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the information to which
People are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. (D.
D. S. W. Gilliland, Ed.) Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational
justice, 63-108.
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness
judgments. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, 1-60.
van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. M. (2001). The Psychology of Procedural and
Distributive Justice Viewed From the Perspective of Fairness Heuristic Theory. In
R. Cropanzano, Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (Illustrated
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 49-66). Psychology Press.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the Construct of Organizational
Justice: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Relations with Work Attitudes and
Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193-203. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015820708345
Youngcourt, S. S., Leiva, P. I., & Jones, R. G. (2007). Perceived purposes of performance
appraisal: Correlates of individual- and position-focused purposes on attitudinal
outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(3), 315-343.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.1207
Zhang, H., & Agarwal, N. C. (2009). The mediating roles of organizational justice on the
relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in
China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 676-
693. doi:10.1080/09585190802707482
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007, September). The Impact of
Psychological Contract Breach on Work-Related Outcomes: a Meta-Analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 647-680. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x
212
Zimmerman, R., Mount, M., & Goff, M. (2008). Multisource feedback and leaders’ goal
performance: moderating effects of rating purpose, rater perspective, and
performance dimension. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
16(2), 121-133.
7. APPENDICES
APPENDIX-A: TABLES
Table 28: Results for Main Effects and Moderated regression Analysis for Perceived
Overall Injustice Perception
Model Summary
R R2 F df1 df2 P
.4448 .197 14.71 7 372 .0000
Path Coefficients
β Se t P LLCI UCLI
Constant 2.4134 .4975 4.8515 .0000 1.4353 3.3916
Step-1 perceived administrative
purposes failure (PAPF)
.2686 .0665 4.0396 .0001 .1378 .3993
Step-2 Perceived organizational
support (POS)
-.6680 .1064 -6.4674 .0000 -.8972 -.4788
Step-3 PAPF X POS -.2878 .0797 -3.6103 .0003 -.4446 -.1311
Interaction: PAPF X POS
R2 change F df1 df2 P
213
PAPF X POS .0178 13.03 1.0 372 .0003
Table 29: Results for Main Effects and Moderated regression Analysis for Perceived
Overall Injustice Perception
Model Summary
R R2 F df1 df2 P
.4772 .2277 22.113 7 372 .0000
Path Coefficients
β Se t P LLCI UCLI
Constant 2.3271 .4874 4.7749 .0000 1.3687 3.2854
Step-1 perceived developmental
purposes failure (PDPF)
.3159 .0580 5.4488 .0000 .2019 .4300
Step-2 Perceived organizational
support (POS)
-.5686 .1095 -5.1920 .0000 -.7839 -.3532
Step-3 PDPF X POS -.3537 .0811 -4.3637 .0000 -.5131 -.1943
Interaction: PDPF X POS
R2 change F df1 df2 P
.0248 19.041 1.00 372.0 .0000
214
Table 30: Results for Main Effects and Moderated regression Analysis for Perceived
Overall Injustice Perception
Model Summary
R R2 F df1 df2 P
.5942 .3531 37.49 7.0 372 .0000
Path Coefficient
β Se t P LLCI UCLI
Constant 2.3103 .4237 5.4525 .0000 1.4771 3.1435
Step-1 perceived strategic
purposes failure (PSPF)
.5495 .0551 9.9674 .0000 .4411 .6579
Step-2
Perceived
organizational support
(POS)
-.2899 .1131 -2.5640 .0107 -.5122 -.0676
Step-3 PSPF X POS -.1607 .0638 -2.5180 .0122 -.2862 -.0352
Interaction: PSPF X POS
R2 change F df1 df2 P
PSPF X POS .0096 6.3403 1.0 372 .0122
215
Table 31: Results for Main Effects and Moderated regression Analysis for Perceived
Overall Injustice Perception
Model Summary
R R2 F df1 df2 P
.5899 .3479 31.777 7.0 372 .0000
Path Coefficient
β Se t P LLCI UCLI
Constant 2.2887 .4507 5.0783 .0000 1.4025 3.1749
Step-1 perceived role definition
purposes failure
(PRDPF)
.5309 .0518 10.2517 .0000 .4291 .6327
Step-2 Perceived organizational
support (POS)
-.3861 .1034 -3.7333 .0002 -.5895 -.1828
Step-3 PRDPF X POS -.1685 .0742 -2.2702 .0238 -.3145 -.0226
Interaction: PRDPF X POS
R2 change F df1 df2 P
PRDPF X POS .0107 5.1537 1.0 372 .0238
216
Table 32: Assessment of normality
Variable min max skew kurtosis
pos8 1.000 7.000 .792 .595
pos7 1.000 7.000 .534 .367
pos6 1.000 7.000 .803 .773
pos5 1.000 7.000 .728 .394
pos4 1.000 7.000 .948 1.464
pos3 1.000 7.000 .646 .259
pos2 1.000 7.000 .729 .711
pos1 1.000 7.000 .870 .810
prdpf1 1.000 7.000 -1.397 2.317
prdpf2 1.000 7.000 -.935 .942
prdpf3 1.000 7.000 -.624 .317
pspf1 1.000 7.000 -1.208 1.580
pspf2 1.000 7.000 -1.014 1.390
pspf3 1.000 7.000 -.690 .156
pspf4 1.000 7.000 -1.053 1.284
pspf5 1.000 7.000 -.968 1.027
217
Variable min max skew kurtosis
pspf6 1.000 7.000 -.944 .982
pdpf1 1.000 7.000 -1.267 1.471
pdpf2 1.000 7.000 -.789 .595
pdpf3 1.000 7.000 -1.268 1.611
papf1 1.000 7.000 -1.234 1.531
papf2 1.000 7.000 -1.152 1.266
papf3 1.000 7.000 -.976 1.017
R17 1.000 7.000 -.834 .506
R16 1.000 7.000 -.565 .661
R15 1.000 7.000 -.853 .673
R14 1.000 7.000 -1.025 1.484
R13 1.000 7.000 -.817 1.005
R12 1.000 7.000 -.690 .543
R11 1.000 7.000 -.794 .904
R10 1.000 7.000 -1.196 1.717
R9 1.000 7.000 -.773 .792
R8 1.000 7.000 -.837 .980
R7 1.000 7.000 -.660 .461
R6 1.000 7.000 -.958 1.000
R5 2.000 7.000 -.722 .065
R4 1.000 7.000 -1.171 1.841
R3 1.000 7.000 -.901 .749
218
Variable min max skew kurtosis
R2 1.000 7.000 -.850 .713
R1 1.000 7.000 -.815 .687
IRP1 1.000 7.000 .784 .159
IRP2 1.000 7.000 1.262 2.161
IRP3 1.000 7.000 1.389 2.739
IRP4 1.000 7.000 1.210 1.801
IRP5 1.000 7.000 1.186 1.623
IRP6 1.000 7.000 .846 1.434
IRP7 1.000 7.000 1.483 3.902
oip1 1.000 7.000 -1.034 .590
oip2 1.000 7.000 -.824 .444
oip3 1.000 7.000 -1.047 .816
oip4 1.000 7.000 -.979 .554
oip5 1.000 7.000 -.647 .172
oip6 1.000 7.000 -.626 .113
219
APPENDIX-B: FIGURES
Figure 16: Moderated effects of Perceived organizational support between the
relationship of Perceived administrative purposefulness failure and overall injustice
percption
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low Mod High
Per
ceiv
ed O
rgan
izat
ion
al S
up
po
rt
Perceived Administrative Purposes Failure
Low
Moderate
High
220
Figure 17: Moderated effects of Perceived organizational support between the
relationship of Perceived istrative developmental purposefulness failure and overall
injustice percption
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3
Per
ceve
d O
rgan
izat
ion
al S
up
po
rt
Perceived Developmental Purposes Failure
Low
Moderate
High
221
Figure 18: Moderated effects of Perceived organizational support between the
relationship of Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure and overall injustice
percption
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Low Mod High
Ove
rall
Inju
stic
e P
erce
pti
on
Perceived Strategic Purposes Failure
Low
Moderate
High
222
Figure 19: Moderated effects of Perceived organizational support between the
relationship of Perceived role definition purposefulness failure and overall injustice
percption
Figure 20: Plots showing homoscedasticity of data for Retaliation
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Low Mod High
Ove
rall
Inju
stic
e p
erce
pti
on
Perceive Role Definition Purposes Failure
Low
Moderate
High
225
APPENDIX-C: QUESTIONNAIRE
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCINCES
PhD MANAGEMENT
To be filled by Appraisees
This questionnaire is designed to collect information about the employee’s perception
towards employee performance evaluation system from civil service of Pakistan. The
information shall be used as a primary data in my research, which I am conducting as a
partial requirement of my study at International Islamic University for completing my
PhD Management under the Faculty of management Sciences.
The research is to be evaluated in terms of its contribution to our understanding of the
practices of public sector institutions in Pakistan and its contribution to improvements in
these practices. Therefore, your genuine, honest, and prompt response is a valuable input
for the quality and successful completion of the research.
I will also be willing to get your permission for release of the information even when it
is meant for academic use if such permission is required by your organization.
General Instructions
• There is no need of writing your name
• In all cases where answer options are available please tick () in the appropriate
box.
• For questions that demands your opinion, please try to honestly describe as per
the questions on the space provided
Thank you, for your cooperation and timely response in advance
226
PART I: Participant Information
The following information is being collected for statistical purposes only. This
information will be combined for all respondents and analyzed at the group level.
Once the data has been received, this page will be detached from the survey and
destroyed
1. Number of years you have worked for this organization (in years)___________
2. Number of years working on this job (in years): _ 0-4 _ 5-9 _ 10-19 _ 20-30 _ 30
years or more____________
3. Position: Non-supervisory Supervisory
4. Gender: Female Male
5.
Age: Under 20 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40
41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 60 or
over 6. Educational Qualification:
_ High school graduate
_Technical school graduate
_ College Diploma
_ BA/BSc Degree
_ Masters Degree
_ PhD _ Other (please state______________________)
7. Have you been evaluated for the last one year? _ Yes _ No
If your answer to question number 7 is yes, please turn over to complete part II
227
PART II: Questions related to the performance appraisal
Listed below are statements about the practices of Employee performance Evaluation in
your organization. Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements so that
your answers to these questions will enable me to assess what you think about the
practices of performance evaluation in your organization. This part comprised of three
sections named as A, C.
Section-A: Performance appraisal purposefulness failure
Administrative Purposes Failure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1-
Str
on
gly
Dis
agre
e
Dis
agre
e
So
mew
hat
dis
agre
e
Nei
ther
agre
e o
r
dis
agre
e
So
mew
hat
agre
e
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
Ag
ree
1) PA does not help in determining
whether to promote, retain or
terminate an employee
2) PA fails to determine what raise
someone should receive
3) The PA lacks process documents
and fails to recognizes employee
performance
2- Developmental purposes Failure
4) Performance ratings don’t let
employees know where they stand
5) Performance ratings are not use to
provide feedback about employee
performance properly.
6) Performance appraisals don’t
identify individual strengths and
weaknesses
3- Strategic Purposes Failure
7) PA does not help in doing
Personnel planning
8) PA does not help in determining
organizational training needs
9) PA does not help in Evaluating
goal achievement
10) PA does not help in Evaluating
personnel systems
11) PA does not help in Reinforcing
authority structure
12) PA does not help in Identifying
organizational development Needs
228
4- Role-definition Purposes Failure
13) PA does not provide information
about what employees are
responsible for accomplishing
14) PA does not provide information
that helps make positive changes in
the job itself”
15) PA does not help provide
information about what employees
actually do in their jobs
Section-C : Perceived organizational support
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Str
on
gly
Dis
agre
e
Dis
agre
e
So
mew
hat
dis
agre
e
Nei
ther
agre
e o
r
dis
agre
e
So
mew
hat
agre
e
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
Ag
ree
1 The organization values my contribution to its well-being.
2 The organization fails to appreciate any
extra effort from me. (R)
3 The organization would ignore any
complaint from me. (R)
4 The organization really cares about my well-
being.
5 Even if I did the best job possible, the
organization would fail to notice. (R)
6 The organization cares about my general
satisfaction at work.
7 The organization shows very little concern
for me. (R)
8 The organization takes pride in my
accomplishments at work.
*Note: Items marked with (R) are reverse-scored.
Thank you once again
229
PART III: Questions related to the Overall injustice perceptions
Below statements are aimed to measure the individual’s overall injustice perceptions
about the prеvailing PA system. Please indicate your level of agreement with the
statements so that your answers to these questions will enable me to assess what you
think about the practices of performance evaluation in your organization.
Section-B: Overall injustice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Str
on
gly
Dis
agre
e
Dis
agre
e
So
mew
hat
dis
agre
e N
eith
er
agre
e o
r
dis
agre
e S
om
ewh
at
agre
e
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
Ag
ree
01 Overall, I’m not treated fairly by my
organization
02 In general, I can’t count on this
organization to be fair
03 In general, the treatment I receive around
here is not fair
04 Usually, the way things work in this
organization are fair ®
05 For the most part, this organization treats
its employees unfairly
06 Most of the people who work here would
say they are often treated fairly (R)
*Note: Items marked with (R) are reverse-scored.
Thank you once again
230
Part-IV
Dear Coworker:
This questionnaire is designed to collect information about the employee’s perception
towards employee performance evaluation system from civil service of Pakistan. The
study is aimed to look at how people's perceptions of their workplace affect their feelings
their jobs and influence the various ways they behave at work. You have been asked to
fill out this survey by a coworker in your workgroup or department. Please begin by
entering the secret code that your coworker created in the space provided below. Next,
please answer how you see YOUR COWORKER’S job conditions and behaviors
based on your observations, experiences, impressions, and conversations with YOUR
COWORKER. Please answer the questions by yourself, without discussing them with
your coworker. It will take between 5 and 10 minutes to complete.
Please enter the secret code created by your coworker in the blank space below.
Secret code _________________
Please do not identify yourself or your coworker (i.e., do not provide either your or your
coworker’s full first name or last name). The information that your coworker provided
regarding his/her name (first name and last initial ONLY) and your email address will not
be retained. Only the secret code will be kept. It will be used to match your answers to
the answers of your coworker.
Thank you in advance for your participation. Feel free to contact me if you have any
questions.
231
Item
No.
In-Role Performance Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The following questions concern your
perceptions about your colleague(s).
Str
on
gly
Dis
agre
e
Dis
agre
e
So
mew
hat
dis
agre
e
Nei
ther
ag
ree
or
dis
agre
e
So
mew
hat
agre
e
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
Ag
ree
1 Adequately completes assigned duties
2 Fulfills responsibilities specified in job
description
3 Performs tasks that are expected of
him/her.
4 Meets formal performance requirements
of the job
5 Engages in activities that will directly
affect his/her performance evaluation.
6 Neglects aspects of the job he/she is
obligated to perform. (R)
7 Fails to perform essential duties. (R)
*Note: Items marked with (R) are reverse-scored.
Please go through the following items and tick in one of the seven boxes. The range is
from 1 to 7 denoting 1-Never, 2 – Rarely, in less than 10% of the chances, 3 –
Occasionally, in about 30% of the chances, 4 – Sometimes, in about 50% of the chances,
5 – Frequently, in about 70% of the chances, 6 – Usually, in about 90% of the chances, 7
– Every time.
Item
No.
Retaliation Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nev
er
Rar
ely
Occ
asio
nal
ly
So
met
imes
Fre
qu
entl
y
Usu
ally
Ev
ery
tim
e
1. In my work place people on purpose,
damaged equipment or work process
2. In my work place people take supplies
home without permission
3. In my work place people waste railway
materials
4. In my work place people call in sick
when not ill
5. In my work place people speak poorly
about the organization to others
232
6. In my work place people refuse to
work on holidays or beyond office
hours when asked
7. In my work place people leave a mess
unnecessarily (do not clean up)
8. In my work place people disobey a
supervisor's instructions
9. In my work place people "talk back" to the boss
10. In my work place people gossip about the
boss
11. In my work place people spread rumors
about co-workers
12. In my work place people give a co-
worker a "silent treatment"
13. In my work place people in my work
place people fail to give a co-worker
required information
14. In my work place people try to look busy
while wasting time
15. In my work place people take an
extended tea/coffee or lunch break
16. In my work place people intentionally
work slower
17. In my work place people spend time on
personal matters while at work
Thank you once again
top related