Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance Appraisal Reactions: A Review and Research Agenda

  • Chapter
Book cover Feedback at Work

Abstract

Employee reactions to performance appraisals are essential to appraisal effectiveness: They are correlated with subsequent job attitudes, motivation, and performance. Yet, many managers dread giving appraisal reviews and employee reactions are often negative. Although performance appraisal research has traditionally focused on psychometric properties of performance ratings, there is a burgeoning literature on appraisal reactions. In this chapter, this burgeoning literature is reviewed to identify key predictors of appraisal reactions, opportunities for future research, as well as implications for managers and organizations. A conceptual model is developed to guide future research; this model implies that more longitudinal and multilevel studies are needed to better understand the processes whereby predictors are related to appraisal reactions. This review suggests that managers and organizations should pay special attention to leader–member exchange quality, due process performance appraisal, and providing opportunities for voice in the appraisal review so as to improve performance appraisal effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Employee reactions to performance appraisals will be referred to as appraisal reactions throughout the rest of the document for purposes of clarity and parsimony.

References

  • Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anseel, F., Van Yperen, N. W., Janssen, O., & Duyck, W. (2011). Feedback type as a moderator of the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 703–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, W. K., & Sulsky, L. M. (1990). Performance appraisal effectiveness. In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 133–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassett, G. A., & Meyer, H. H. (1968). Performance appraisal based on self-review. Personnel Psychology, 21, 421–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonness, B., & Macan, T. (2006). Reactions to the performance appraisal process: Effects of self-appraisals. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W., & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31, 903–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, A. T., Vest, M., & Hills, F. (1997). Who delivers justice? Source perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(12), 1021–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal ofAapplied Psychology, 86(3), 386.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGregorio, M., & Fisher, C. D. (1988). Providing performance feedback: Reactions to alternate methods. Journal of Management, 14(4), 605–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluation’s fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 288–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elicker, J. D. (2000). An organizational justice explanation of feedback reactions in different leader-member exchange relationships. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Akron.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). Procedural justice as a two-dimensional construct: An examination in the performance appraisal context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M., & McShane, S. L. (1988). Employee perceptions of performance appraisal fairness in two organizations. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 20(2), 177–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Relationship clean-up time: Using meta analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 161–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 101–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Konovsky, M., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process model of performance appraisal. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 129–177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, W. F., Findley, H. M., & Field, H. S. (1997). Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: Beyond the review session. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(4), 493–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greller, M. M. (1975). Subordinate participation and reactions to the appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 544–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980’s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inderrieden, E. J., Allen, R. E., & Keavey, T. J. (2004). Managerial discretion in the use of self-ratings in an appraisal system: The antecedents and consequences. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(4), 460–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inderrieden, E. J., Keaveny, T. J., & Allen, R. E. (1988). Predictors of employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2(4), 306–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I. M. (2010). The mediating role of appraisal feedback reactions on the relationship between rater feedback-related behaviors and ratee performance. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 494–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, P., Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2007). Understanding performance appraisal fairness. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45(2), 132–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, E., Meyer, H. H., & French, R. P. (1965). Effects of threat in a performance appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 311–317.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708–723.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G. E., Wu, B., & Mckee-Ryan, F. M. (2004). A covariance structure analysis of employee’s response to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1057–1069.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiman, L. S., Biderman, M. D., & Faley, R. H. (1987). An examination of employee perceptions of a subjective performance appraisal system. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2(2), 112–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., & Snell, S. (1994). The impact of interview process and context on performance appraisal interview effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6(2), 160–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., Snell, S. A., & Wexley, K. N. (1987). Systems model of the performance appraisal interview process. Industrial Relations, 26(3), 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21(4), 657–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on manager's interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 289–313.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 751–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. E., Cavanaugh, C. M., Frantz, N. B., & Borden, L. A. (2015). The role of due process in performance appraisal: A 20-year retrospective. In The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace, NY: Oxford University Press, 605–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (1998). The role of perceived system knowledge in predicting appraisal reactions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, M. (2011). The engagement/performance equation. Aberdeen Group. Retrieved from: http://hosteddocs.ittoolbox.com/the-engagement-performance-equation.pdf

  • Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinecke, A. L., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). What happens during annual appraisal interviews? How leader–follower interactions unfold and impact interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1054–1074.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, B. R., Mohrman, A. M., & Milliman, J. (1991). Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 352–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeroff, W. F., & Wexley, K. N. (1979). An exploration of the relationships between performance feedback interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers and subordinates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichler, S., Beenen, G., & Wood, S. (2018). Feedback frequency and appraisal reactions: a meta-analytic test of moderators. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1443961

  • Pichler, S., Varma, A., Michel, J. S., Levy, P. E., & Budwar, P. S. (2016). Leader-member exchange, group and individual-level procedural justice reactions to performance appraisals. Human Resource Management, 55(5), 871–883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichler, S., Varma, A., & Petty, R. (2008). Rater–ratee relationships and performance management. In A. Varma, P. Budhwar, & A. DeNisi (Eds.), Performance management systems: A global perspective. (pp. 55–66). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. S., & Goode, D. L. (1988). An analysis of manager’s reactions to their own performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 63–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571–600.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh, Y. (1992). Instrumental and noninstrumental voice effects on perceptions of procedural justice in a performance appraisal. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Nebraska – Lincoln.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. S., Masterson, S. S., Renard, M. K., & Tracy, K. (1998). Manager’s reactions to procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 568–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 495–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tharenou, P. (1995). The impact of a developmental performance appraisal program on employee perception in an Australian federal agency. Group & Organization Management, 20, 245–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., & Kopelman, R. E. (2002). Is there a preferred performance rating format? A non-psychometric perspective. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 479–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., Kopelman, R. E., & Joanis, C. (1997). Investigation of raters’ and ratees’ reactions to three methods of performance appraisal: BOS, BARS, and GRS. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(4), 396–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., Kopelman, R. E., & Livneh, N. (1993). Effects of performance appraisal format on perceived goal characteristics, appraisal process satisfaction, and changes in rated job performance: A field experiment. The Journal of Psychology, 127(3), 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2005). Contextual and rater factors affecting rating behavior. Group and Organization Behavior, 30(1), 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varma, A., Pichler, S., & Srinivas, E. S. (2005). The role of interpersonal affect in performance appraisal: Evidence from two samples–the US and India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(11), 2029–2044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (1992). The effects of perceived system knowledge on the agreement between self-ratings and supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 45(4), 835–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Investigating some neglected criteria: The influence of organizational level and perceived system knowledge on appraisal reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 501–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander, A., & Gyr, J. (1955). Changing attitudes toward a merit rating system. Personnel Psychology, 8(1955), 429.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Mihaylo College of Business & Economics, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA

    Shaun Pichler

Authors
  1. Shaun Pichler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaun Pichler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA

    Lisa A. Steelman

  2. Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Jane R. Williams

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pichler, S. (2019). Performance Appraisal Reactions: A Review and Research Agenda. In: Steelman, L.A., Williams, J.R. (eds) Feedback at Work. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30915-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation