MSc in INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
MN5251: DISSERTATION
A critical examination of employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy in China
ABSTRACT
This study investigates what determinants contribute to employee’s perceived appraisaaccuracy in Chinese organisations. This study develops a model that utilises distributivejustice, procedural justice, 留學生國際管理碩士dissertationinteractional justice, interpersonal affect, administrativepurpose, developmental purpose, perceived use of multiple criteria and perceived use ofmultiple raters to predict employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy in China. Based onexisting literature, this study conducts a survey in 9 Chinese organisations to examinethis framework. Data from 194 Chinese employees are utilised to test the hypothesizedrelationships. Interview data from 4 respondents are utilised to interpret the underlyinglogic behind the relationships. The results suggest that the perception distributive justice,procedural justice, interactional justice, interpersonal affect,administrative purpose anddevelopmental purpose are positively related to employee’s perceived appraisalaccuracy. Furthermore, the findings indicate that when organisations consider theirstrategies about PA systems in China, national cultural values should be taken intoaccount. Specifically, open, honest and modest business culture seems to be morefeasible in China.
CONTENT
ABSTRACT.....................................................................0
Chapter 1: Introduction.....................................................3
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Hypotheses .................5
Chapter 3: Method..........................................................21
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results .....................................28
Chapter 5: Discussion.....................................................35
Chapter 6: Limitation and Implication............................41
Chapter 7: Conclusion ....................................................43
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................44
REFERENCE.................................................................45
APPENDIX....................................................................57
3
Chapter 1: Introduction
Human resource (HR), as Hamel & Prahalad (1993) concluded, is one of the mostfundamental and sustainable sources of competitive advantage. ‘A substantial andrapidly expanding body of evidence’ showed ‘the strong connection between how firmsmanage their people and the economic results achieved’ (Pfeffer, 1998:31). Withrealisation of the decisive effect of HR in the real business world, human resource
management (HRM) becomes more popular in business studies. More and morescholars and practitioners have conducted relevant research to provide theoretical andempirical guidance since the early 1900s when the modern concept of HRM was#p#分頁標題#e#
launched in reaction to the efficiency focus of Taylorism. Performance appraisal (PA),whereby a manager or HR professional appraises the work performance of subordinates,is a principle managerial tool in the area of HRM (Longenecker & Goff, 1992). It isbelieved that PA contributes to organisational target through determining, praising andpunishing effective and ineffective performance, therefore provide the organisation,together with the employees, with a plethora of benefits (Coens & Jenkins, 2000).As indicated by some literature, PA has been one of the most common managerial toolsutilised in western organisations. The research which based on practices in the U.S.organisations pointed that more than 90 percent of large organisations employ someperformance appraisal system and nearly 75 percent of state employment systemsrequest annual PA (Locker & Teel, 1988; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991; Seldon, Ingraham& Jacobson, 2001). The attention of PA also extends to some developing 留學生人力資源管理dissertation定制countries likeChina. However, due to distinct ‘national culture and social institutional arrangements,
Chinese and foreign partners often regard different human resource managementpractices as fair’ (Leung, K. & Kwong, 2003: 85). Such divergence forces Chineseresearchers and companies to search a suitable model for China’s specific environment
and conditions rather than simply replicate the practices in western organisations(Bjorkman & Fan, 2002; Leung, K. & Kwong, 2003). Thus, for Chinese basedcompanies, it is worth rethinking the existing PA theories in Chinese context. Based on
existing literature (Ashford, 1989; Atwater & Yammarino, 1993; Bass, 1990; Bass &Yammarino, 1991; Velsor, Taylor & Leslie, 1993; Vest, Scott & Tarnoff, 1995), thisdissertation regards employees’ perceived appraisal accuracy as one of the mostsignificant predictors that can reflect the overall success of PA systems in China.Meanwhile, by reviewing the relevant research, I likewise found that limited China
based scholarly pursuits appeared in this area. This study represents the latestexploratory attempt on employees’ perceived accuracy of PA system in China.Existing research have indicated the great value of perceived appraisal accuracy.
According to Yammarino & Atwater’s (1993) research, employee’s perceived appraisalaccuracy is an important factor to consider when assessing ‘outcomes for theindividuals and the organisations of which they are a part’ (Yammarino & Atwater,1993:244). As being conventional affirmed by HRM scholars, the more accurateemployees’ perceptions of a PA system are, the greater the commitment employees are
willing to make to the organisation. On this basis, employees will accordingly determinetheir organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) or, on the contrary, ineffectivebehaviour to the organisation. There is no doubt that such kinds of employee behaviourwill attribute to organisational effectiveness and success.#p#分頁標題#e#
This study aims to provide some meaningful practical implications for the PA system in
Chinese companies. The main questions of the project are: 1) What are the determinantsof a successful PA system in China? As outlined above, employees’ perceived appraisalaccuracy was adopted as the ‘test case’ for PA system. In order to explore the potential
factors contributing to employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy in China, based on asynthetic consideration, this dissertation decides to examine eight antecedents, includingdistributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, interpersonal affect,
administrative purpose, developmental purpose, perceived use of multiple criteria andperceived use of multiple raters. These independent variables all originate from existingheories and frameworks. To examine the contributions of these distinct variables to
perceived appraisal accuracy, this dissertation sets up eight hypotheses and conductssurveys among 194 employees in Chinese companies. Then quantitative analysis isconducted, confirming the relationships between the antecedents and employees’perceived appraisal accuracy. 2) What are (if any) the reasons that these antecedentscontribute to employees’ perceived appraisal accuracy and whether cultural distinctions(if any) have interfered with the interpretations? This study tests and interprets thevariables that contribute to employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy by utilising bothliterature and telephone interviews. The extraction of the outcomes reveals some
interesting findings which expose the essentiality of considering cultural context whileattempting to apply the western approach to China..
The dissertation is organized as follows: in chapter 2, a detailed literature review isposed to explain the theoretical framework and background around the issue ofperceived appraisal accuracy. Based on the literature review, eight hypotheses are
formulated to assess the relationship between these supposed antecedents and perceivedappraisal accuracy respectively. After reviewing the relevant literature, the method of
data collection and the measures utilised for variables are interpreted in chapter 3. I then
analyses the data, test the hypotheses and discuss the results in chapter 4 and chapter 5
respectively. Some additional interview data which I captured by the end of the survey
are revealed in the discussion section (i.e. chapter 5) to help interpret the underlying
logic behind the results. Finally, limitations of the research together with implications
for future study are added at the end in chapter 6.
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Hypotheses
Perceived Appraisal Accuracy
PA is a key part in HRM (Kreitner, 2007). Griffin & Ebert (2002) describe PA as the
‘formal evaluation of an employee's job performance in order to determine the degree to
6
which the employee is performing effectively’ (2002: 216). It is an important method#p#分頁標題#e#
for measuring and defining human attributes (Dickinson, 1987). Despite the popularity
of PA as a management tool, there is a continued debate concerning its efficacy. Many
researchers and practitioners argued that PA is, in a sense, a problematic measure. Farr
& Landy (1983) have noted that PA is a type of psychological measures, it requires
human judgments and raters usually have no objective way to assess true performance.
Furthermore, some scholars (Dickinson, 1987; Farr & Landy, 1980; Campbell, Dunnette,
Lawler & Weick, 1970) viewed PA as a fallible measure since several critical distortions
and bias may reduce the efficacy of PA. Considering the specialities of PA, choosing a
proper criterion to evaluate the efficacy of PA must be crucial. Three main values in PA
have been identified: reliability, validity and accuracy (Farr & Landy, 1983). Reliability
refers to the consistency of measurement. It is defined as ‘the extent to which the
variance in a set of measurements is due to systematic sources’ (Farr & Landy, 1983: 9).
Validity examines the correlation between the systematic variance and the purpose of
the measurement (Dunnette & Borman,1979). Accuracy concerns with both reliability
and validity, moreover, it also implies the ‘absolute level of performance’ (Farr & Landy,
1983: 22). As Farr & Landy (1983) mentioned, ‘accuracy is a more salient issue with
judgmental measures of performance, especially ratings, than with objective measures’
(1983: 22). This means accuracy is more likely to be a relative and perceivable measure.
The accurate or, inversely, inaccurate level of the PA depends on human’s awareness
and perception about the process and outcomes of a PA (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000;
Vest, Scott and Tarnoff, 1995). For example, a existing study conducted by Landy,
Barnes-Farrell & Cleveland (1980) suggested that if employees view an appraisal
system as fair, they will possibly believe that the overall PA is accurate. Since accuracy
is closely related to self-perception, some researchers extended the definition of
accuracy and developed a new conception based on relative human judgement which is
named perceived appraisal accuracy (Ashford, 1989; Bass & Yammarino, 1991;
Yammarino & Atwater, 1993; Velsor, Taylor & Leslie, 1993; Vest, Scott & Tarnoff,
1995).
Yammarino & Atwater (1993) defined perceived appraisal accuracy as ‘the degree of
agreement between self- and other ratings’ (1993: 237). This definition is from the
ratee’s perspective and emphasizes on the importance of ratee’s satisfaction to an
appraisal. Perceived appraisal accuracy has consistently been supported to influence the
overall organisational effectiveness through several ways. Firstly, perceived appraisal#p#分頁標題#e#
accuracy beliefs will directly contribute to the fitness between individual outcomes and
留學生國際管理碩士dissertationorganisational outcomes (Ashford, 1989; Atwater & Yammarino, 1993; Bass, 1990;
Bass & Yammarino, 1991). Employees will sophisticatedly conduct their behaviours
and final outcomes according to their perceived appraisal accuracy beliefs, especially
when pay is tied to performance (Lawler, 1981; Winstanley, 1975). Meanwhile,
employees’ expectations and requirements for career promotions, leadership skills,
performance evaluations, and training and development requirements will also differ for
accurate and inaccurate perceptions (Yammarino & Atwater, 1993). This is consistent
with Vroom’s expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). Secondly, perceived appraisal accuracy,
interrelating with perceived fairness, is also believed to have influence on employees’
OCB (Organ, 1990). Based on equity theory and social exchange theory, Organ thought
that perceived appraisal accuracy and fairness can obtain employees’ commitment to
organisation and willingness to compensate organisation through OCB.
While perceived appraisal accuracy can play one of the pivotal strategic roles during PA,
outlining several variables which may intend to increase or reduce employee’s
perceived appraisal accuracy is essential. Referring to existing research on PA as well as
considering the specific context of Chinese culture and business environment, a mixed
set of variables is provided. These potential factors are specifically proposed as
organisational justice including distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional
justice, multiple performance criteria, multiple rater types, interpersonal affect and
multiple purposes (Organ, 1990; Black & Mark, 1992; Black, 1992; Henderson, 1980;
Varma & Pichler, 2007; Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Boswell and Boudreau, 2000;
Youngcourt, Leiva and Jones, 2007). This study represents the latest analytical attempt
to examine and describe the contributions to perceived appraisal accuracy in Chinese
8
organisations.
Distributive Justice
Distributive justice, as one aspect of organisational justice, is always a vital component
in terms of organisational behaviour theories. It is believed to be established on Adams’s
equity theory. Greenberg (1990) outlines Adams’ theory which proposes that individuals
want fair and just organisational outcomes compared to their input into the work that
they do, they will adjust their achievement according to the certain outcomes in terms of
fairness they perceive. Some scholars provide similar definitions from the perspective
of individual outcomes. Lam, Schaubroeck & Aryee (2002) view distributive justice as#p#分頁標題#e#
‘perceived fairness of the outcomes employees receive’ (2002:1). Mueller, Iverson, &
Jo’s (1999) definition focuses upon organisational rewards, they view distributive
justice as ‘the person’s appraisal of the fairness of his/her rewards [outcomes] given
his/her inputs’ (1999: 871).Whereas distributive justice is likewise defined as an
exchange (Lambert, 2003), ‘distributive justice is the degree of perceived fairness in
distribution and allocation of outcomes within an organisation based upon inputs’,
‘People look at what they have done in exchange for what they receive’(2003: 156).
These definitions of distributive justice indicate employees’ attitudes towards
organisations through comparing the value they contributed with the value they
obtained.
Distributive justice that has significant meanings for employee’s perceived appraisal
accuracy is doubtless. For instance, in HRM system, the formal PA component always
inosculates with work outcomes since one of the main functions of performance
evaluation is to achieve a valid and reliable assessment for employees’ efforts over the
year. Since employees’ work achievements are exposed in the appraisal feedback,
employees highly value this outcome. Brown & Benson’s (2003) research regarding
with the link between PA and emotional exhaustion provides us some evidence on this
9
assumption. They found that, in the eye of the employee, the rating of an employee
represents employee’s contribution to the organisation and affirms their sense of
self-esteem. What is more, the outcomes employees receive from the feedback affect
their perceived validity of the appraisal (Brown & Benson, 2003). In fact, the results of
the appraisal are also utilised in deciding employees’ promotion or salary increase,
which in turn will enhance the essentiality of these outcomes for employees. Based on
the importance of such appraisal outcomes, employees therefore will compare the
consistency of the outcomes they perceive from the rating with both their perceived
levels of working performance and endeavours they counter. Such expectations will lead
to certain perceptions of distributive fairness and accuracy on the PA system.
Williams’s(1998) finding corroborate this idea, which indicates that managers will
identify PAs as accurate only if they receive actual performance based evaluations from
the PAs. In a similar vein, Folger and Cropanzano (1998) found that feedback generated
by PA will only be regarded as accurate when the evaluation represents employees’ real
efforts. All of these research imply that if the employees consider the outcomes they
have obtained are fair and accurate, they will be more satisfied and thus commit to the
PA system.#p#分頁標題#e#
To some extent, perceived appraisal accuracy is particularly important in PA because
sometimes when employees fail to achieve their goals, the top management may be
required to provide negative feedback. In this case, the employee who receives a
negative evaluation from management will tend to judge the appraisal is inaccurate and
the outcomes they received are injustice (Folger, 1987), leading to dissatisfaction with
the PA system. From this point of view, it is essential for top management to
demonstrate the accuracy of the PA system they employed. Just as Folger & Cropanzano
(1998) pointed out, employees will feel distributive injustice upon the PA process when
the appraisal is either poorly conducted, or if it does not exist at all. As a consequence,
employees will probably reduce their efforts if they realise that their inputs have not
been rewarded properly. To be concluded, I put forward the hypothesis as:
10
Hypothesis 1: Perceived distributive justice is positively associated with employee’s
perceived appraisal accuracy.
Procedural Justice
Procedural justice has been defined as ‘perceived fairness in the process of determining
distributive outcomes, such as how pay or promotions are decided within an
organisation’ (Lambert, 2003: 157). As an important issue, procedural justice enables us
to consider otherwise about employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy in organisations. A
growing amount of literature supports the logic that if individuals believe the
procedures of PAs are accurate, they will be more disposed to perceive that the system
is accurate. It is widely agreed that PA is a process constituting by a number of stages
where employees’ performance are reviewed and evaluated. Therefore, employees will
refer the accuracy of the processes to a correct and fair evaluation which is adopted in
the PA. Greenberg (1987, 1990) highlighted the importance of procedural justice and
tracking mechanisms on perceived fairness in PAs. He stated that PA should not only be
fair and candid during the decision-making stage, but it must be perceived to be fair and
candid in how it makes decisions. Then he suggested that (Greenberg, 1987) by utilising
the managerial tool of keeping daily record, the likelihood of PA bias should be reduced.
Similarly, as Lind & Tyler (1988) pointed, if the PA procedure is based on incorrect or
unilateral information, it would probably be unfair. In other words, if the PA is operated
in a fair and precise manner, employees’ perception of procedural justice will be
enhanced. In turn, it is believed that a fair perception of procedural justice will
positively influence employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
Another worthy consideration for perceived appraisal accuracy is that employees’ active
participation in the PA system can heighten employees’ positive experience of#p#分頁標題#e#
procedural justice. This coincides with the findings that if the PA system permit
employee’s ‘voice’ embodying in the processes, it will also help enhance the emotions
11
of procedural fairness. Folger and Lewis (1993) found that the adoption of
self-estimation in PA systems offers employees the opportunities to show their ‘voice’,
therefore heightening employees’ perceptions of appraisal accuracy. Convening regular
meeting with employees is likewise a useful tool to successfully allow employees to
involve in the PA system. Besides this, quite a few organisations do take advantages of
self-evaluations so as to show respect for individual and attach importance to their
views. It is suggested that, allowing individuals to have voice and participate in the PA
processes will positively affect employees’ perceived procedural justice, which in turn
may have significant consequences on perceived appraisal accuracy.
Participation, on the other side, can enhance perceived procedural fairness by offering
the chance for employees to be involved from the outset of PA processes, namely the
design of the performance appraisal system. Steers and Lee once had a study in 1983,
which suggested that this level of participation may enhance the overall efficiency of
the PA system, as employees are prompted to manage the system. The logic underlying
this presupposition is that if employees are involved in the design of the PA system, it
will help these employees to create a sense as if they have control over the whole
system and this in turn may cultivate employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy. In the
realm of goal-setting theory, there are substantial buttresses underpinning this idea. As it
is proposed, employees’ participation in performance goal-setting stage can prompt
them to feel a sense of ‘ownership’, thus increase employees’ perceived procedural
justice in their perspective (Erez & Kanfer, 1983; Locke & Latham, 2002). Likewise,
Folger and Cropanzano (1998) indicated that employees’ participation can help them to
perceive the process as being fairer for they are able to influence the processes and
overall PA system by designing the criteria themselves. Williams (1998) also claimed
that the further positive outcomes towards perceived appraisal accuracy of employees’
participation are the involvement in nature allows them to feel appreciated.
As I attempts to conduct an empirical study about the perceived appraisal accuracy in
Chinese organisations, discussing procedural justice together with the perspective of
12
culture may be meaningful and statistically significant for perceived appraisal accuracy.
Hofstede (1980; 1993) provided an important starting post for gauging the impact of
Chinese culture on perceived appraisal accuracy. He estimated that the dominant#p#分頁標題#e#
Chinese culture values are high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and low
individualism. Some further studies support Hofstede’s theory and empirically explore
the unique PA practices in China. An early research conducted by Jaeger (1986) found
that in Chinese organisations people tend to avoid confrontation meeting because it is
considered as inappropriateness, such attitude, as Jaeger explained, may stem from the
high uncertainty avoidance and high power distance culture in China. Some detailed
culture phenomena were described by Sun (2000), Redding (1991) and Kirkbride, Tang
& Westwood (1991): ‘Chinese doctrine in communication is indirect and implicit’ since
Chinese people have a ‘strong tendency to keep harmony with others wherever it is
possible’, in addition, ‘open conflict and overt self-interest are seen in Chinese ethics as
deeply improper, and in effect ruled out from the range of acceptable behaviour’. Thus,
the reluctance for Chinese employees to share their views in open discussion can be
understood (Sun, 2000). Associating with the logic of procedural justice I discussed
above, Chinese culture is supposed to have important influence on individuals’
perception of procedural fairness. Based on what I has discussed, I therefore
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2: Perceived procedural justice is positively associated with employee’s
perceived appraisal accuracy.
Interactional Justice
Interactional justice is defined as individuals’ concerns with the ‘quality interpersonal
treatment they receive’ (Bies and Moag, 1986: 44) in organisation, as well as with their
‘normative expectations for truthfulness and respect in communication’ (Bies & Shapiro,
1987: 201). Described as ‘interactional’ justice, this concept has been included as an
13
interpersonal aspect of procedural justice and also as a distinct construct along with
procedural and distributive justice (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). These researchers
contend that interactional justice can be understood as separate from procedural justice
on the grounds that it represents the enactment of procedures rather than the
development of the procedures themselves. Interactional justice can be thought of as
having at least two components (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Cropanzano &
Greenberg, 1997). The first subpart is interpersonal sensitivity which prescribes that
treatment should be polite and respectful. Interpersonal justice can take the form of any
social rewards provided by the supervisor or likewise, can include injustice such as an
insult which is defined as a social interaction and an outcome (Mikula, Petrik & Tanzer,
1990).Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that when supervisors show adequate
sensitivity and concern towards employees, treating them with dignity and respect,#p#分頁標題#e#
those employees seem somewhat willing to tolerate the combination of unfair
distributions and procedures. That is to say, if individuals are not treated interactionally
according to these principles, it has significant negative effects on perceived fairness
and accuracy of the appraisal. In reverse, if the individuals are treated abided by the
principles, employees are more willing to accept negative feedback since the
interpersonal fairness they received can justify the impact of outcome negativity on
individuals’ reactions (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). The second subpart is
informational justice which includes explanations or social accounts. Individuals are
more tolerant of an unfavorable outcome when an adequate justification is provided
(Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Shapiro, 1991; Shapiro, Buttner & Barry, 1994). Li and Butler
conducted an empirical research in 2004, in which they investigated the relationship
between goal rationale and goal commitment. As a result, interactional justice is found
so important that individual employees who were provided with detailed interpretation
about the value of the goal would feel fairer in terms of interactional justice in their
mind, which in turn would positively affect goal commitment. Likewise, Bies and
Shapiro found that perceived interactional justice and support for the manager were
sensitively related. Moag later together with Bies supported this by indicating that
perceived fairness can be improved as long as either explanation or justification is
14
available for the action. This is specially related to performance management system
since management has to convey negative information frequently, particularly at PA
processes. That is to say, if management can give reasonable and proper explanation for
the course of action as it is supposed to do, the employees will be inclined to take in
interactional fairness regardless of outcomes. Interpersonal and informational justice
both consider that perceptions of justice are based not only on outcomes or the
procedures one experiences but also from the interpersonal treatment that is received
(Bies, Shapiro, & Cummings, 1988). In this case, interpersonal justice can increase
appraisal accuracy in employees’ minds.
The issue of culture can be seen as an interesting extension of this area. When
researchers are looking at employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy within a Chinese
company, they should pay attention to the company culture in order to obtain knowledge
of the importance of interactional justice and its strong influence in perceived appraisal
accuracy. There is a research conducted by Tata in 2005 which supports this idea. She
examined the cultural differences between United States and China in the terms of
effects on performance management systems and found that Chinese students took more#p#分頁標題#e#
account of interactional justice than American students. She gave her explanation for
this phenomenon, pointing out that the interests for stronger interpersonal relations are
likely to derive from a collectivistic culture in China (Tata, 2005). Given what I have
discussed, the positive effects of interactional justice suggest that employees will
perceive PA to be accurate when interactional justice is perceived to be present. Hence, I
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: Perceived interactional justice is positively associated with
employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
15
Interpersonal Affect
Interpersonal affect, which is seen as a like-dislike relationship between a rater and a
rate (Zajonc, 1980), is always possible to bias PA (Henderson, 1980). Some researchers
saw interpersonal affect as a source of bias in appraisal which can reduce rater accuracy
in performance ratings (Tsui and Barry, 1986). Depending on raters’ liking for the ratees,
their attributions for ratee’s performance varied (Regan, Straus & Fazio, 1974). Nisbett
& Wilson’s (1977) research about global evaluations found that, in an international
setting, even rater’s attitude towards appearance, mannerisms and accent can
significantly influence raters’ attributions for ratee’s performance. Such evidence
confirmed the linkage between interpersonal affect and PA and interpersonal affect is
‘independent of actual performance’ (Dipboye, 1985). However, some researchers
contend that interpersonal affect is highly related to actual performance. They found that
raters are more likely to keep better ‘friendship’ with ratees who are higher performers,
and generally had more positive affect towards high performers (Lowin & Craig, 1968;
Kingstrom & Mainstone, 1985). Simultaneously, the interpersonal affect can also
develop as a result of performance. In fact, they are highly related to each other (Varma,
DeNisi & Peters, 1996). Graen (1976) created Leader-Member Exchange model to
explain the linkage between performance level and interpersonal affect. He argued that
supervisors develop relationships of different qualities with different subordinates, such
relationships will be stable and consistent in a reasonable period, in other words, an
organisation is separated into two subgroups: in-groups and out-groups and supervisors
will discriminatingly treat their subordinates according to their affiliation of these two
subgroups. Some evidence shows that supervisors inclined to work with high
performers (Farris & Lim, 1969) and develop friendship with high-performing
subordinates (Olian, Carroll & Giannantonio, 1993). Thibodeaux & Lowe (1996)
concluded such friendship as ‘mentoring relationship’, which means high performers#p#分頁標題#e#
are more willing to perceive their supervisors as mentors as well as their supervisors
also positively engaged in their career-enhancing (Olian, Carroll & Giannantonio, 1993).
Such interpersonal affect relates not only to specific individuals but also to groups.
16
Henderson (1980) illustrated that if raters ‘relates personally to a specific unit or group,
they may rate members of that particular group higher than individuals in other groups
who perform equally well’. According to the logic I discussed above, individuals who
perceived high level of interpersonal affect would probably perceive high marks from
their raters, hence identify an accurate PA system from their own interests.
Interpersonal affect may need to be more emphasized in China than in any other western
countries because there is a unique culture phenomenon called ‘Guanxi’ existing in
dominant Chinese cultural values. Guanxi can be defined as a ‘continual exchange of
favors due to personal relationships or connections’ (Chen, 1995). Guanxi can deeply
‘infect’ human resource practices in China since the majority of Chinese people tend to
decide their social and interpersonal behaviours according to the different qualities of
Guanxi with others (Bian, 1994; Davies et al., 1995; Tsang, 1998). In a certain sense,
Guanxi can be seen as one of the behaviour patterns of Chinese people (Sun, 2000),
they treat in-group members and outsiders quite differently (Gao, Ting-Toomey &
Gudykunst, 1996). Some surveys showed that Guanxi has been a major bias in PA in
China (Xu, 1998, in Sun, 2000). Chinese people highly viewed Guanxi as an important
social recourse in their life, therefore the preference or abhorrence on their perceived
interpersonal affect may be magnified by such cognitions. On the basis of what I have
discussed, I therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4: The perception of interpersonal affect during PA is positively
associated with employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
PA Purpose
Existing research showed that PAs are utilised in organisations for multiple purposes
rather than one sole purpose (Cleveland, Murphy & Williams, 1989; Ostroff, 1993;
Cleveland et al., 2003). If people perceive the purposes of PA differently, then their
17
attitudes may vary depending on that perception (Balzer & Sulsky, 1990; Ostroff, 1993),
because ‘how a performance appraisal is used may signal to employees their value to
and future in the organisation’ (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000). Therefore, associating the
perceived purposes of PA with perceived appraisal accuracy may be helpful for this
study. As demonstrated by existing scholars (Cleveland, Murphy & Williams, 1989;
Ostroff, 1993; Boswell & Boudreau, 2000), the multiple purposes of PA can be#p#分頁標題#e#
summarized as two typical concepts, i.e. administrative purpose and developmental
purpose. Administrative purpose includes the purposes for deciding and evaluating
salary administration, promotion decisions, retention-termination decisions, recognition
of individual performance, layoffs, and the identification of poor performance (Ostroff,
1993; Boswell & Boudreau, 2000), which are often directly related to valued outcomes
to employees. Although many existing literature have agreed that the administrative
purpose is an important aspect of the appraisal process (Cleveland, Murphy & Williams,
1989; Ostroff, 1993; Prince & Lawler, 1986; Youngcourt, Leiva and Jones, 2007),
researchers showed discordant views about the influence of administrative purpose on
employee’s attitude. Prince and Lawler’s (1986) study suggested that administrative
purpose shows positive affect on employee’s satisfaction of overall PA, particularly if it
strengthens ‘appraisal-reward contingencies’. However, most of other researchers view
administrative purpose as a negative factor (Blau, 1964; Meyer, Kay & French, 1965).
As they discussed, administrative purpose often ‘results in non-constructive responses’
(Boswell & Boudreau, 2000) ‘such as resistance, denial, aggression, or discouragement,
particularly if the assessment is negative’ (Drenth, 1984). Even if an employee received
a positive reward, they might still react unfavourably to administrative purpose. Boswell
& Boudreau (2000) explained that this may derive from employee’s perception of unfair
appraisal process. Therefore it is logical for us to assume that the utilisation of
administrative purpose will reduce perceived appraisal accuracy.
Developmental purpose includes the identification of individual training needs,
providing performance feedback, determining transfers and assignments, and the
identification of individual strengths and weaknesses (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000;
18
Youngcourt, Leiva & Jones, 2007). Developmental purpose as well as the
developmental feedback is essential for employees to improve their performance in the
organisation (Dessler, 1999; Gaines, 1994; Martin, 1992; Stein, 1996; Yaney, 1988) and
it is also a popular utilisation of PA for employees because of its ‘futuristic and helpful
focus’ (Milkovich & Boudreau, 1997; Antonioni, 1996). Developmental purpose is
generally viewed as it can positively affect employee’s attitude towards PA (Boswell &
Boudreau, 2000; Ash, 1994). Youngcourt, Leiva & Jones(2007) were consistent with
Blau’s exchange theory and indicated that if an individual perceives that the utility of
PA is for developmental purpose, he or she may respond constructively according to
opportunities and care provided by the organisation and in turn the individual will#p#分頁標題#e#
subsequently commit to the organisation and perceive that the overall PA is accurate.
According to the logic of perceived appraisal accuracy discussed above, it can be
assumed that perceived developmental purpose may enhance perceived appraisal
accuracy. Hence, developmental purpose and employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy
are regarded to have a positive relationship. On the basis of what I have discussed, I
therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5: The perception of administrative purpose is negatively associated
with employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
Hypothesis 6: The perception of developmental purpose is positively associated
with employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
PA Criteria
Performance criteria are defined as ‘those aspects of employee’s performance that are
measured or evaluated’ (Gregersen, Hite & Black, 1996:714). The development of
performance criteria underpins other functions of the PA system in organizations
(Carroll & Schneir, 1982). Due to the complication of PA system, organisations are
19
always required to explain a wide range of information on PA (Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell &
McKellin, 1993), utilising multiple criteria provides a more comprehensive and less
prejudiced PA that ‘recognizes the multidimensionality of job performance’ (Gregersen,
Hite & Black, 1996:714). Commonly, performance behaviours fall on a continuum from
objective (i.e. hard) to subjective (i.e. soft) criteria and may also contain other
contextual criteria (Gregersen, Hite & Black, 1996; Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Cascio,
1986).
Hard criteria. Criteria that are performance-based or outcome-based (e.g. profit and
market share) are referred to as objective or hard criteria (Carroll & Schneier, 1982).
Hard criteria are usually easy to determine, are considered easy to provide explanations,
and can usually provide a quick appraisal of employee’s performance. Hard criteria are
also suitable and easy tools for legal defence (Bernardin & Cascio, 1984), they
meanwhile reduce the opportunities for either subtle or purposive discrimination (Cox
and Nkomo, 1986). Firms frequently rely on hard criteria to provide an accurate picture
of employee outcomes (Black & Mark, 1992) and to compare performance across
employees, departments, or even on organisational levels (WAI, 1978).
Soft criteria. Soft criteria are important for accurate and well-balanced PAs (Carroll &
Schneier, 1982; Schuler & Huber, 1993). Soft criteria are considered to be opposite to
hard criteria, which refer to the evaluation based on raters' subjective consideration, in
other words, soft criteria are relationship-based criteria (Bernardin & Villanova, 1986;
Carroll & Schneier, 1982; Schuler & Huber, 1993). Carroll & Schneier (1982) argued#p#分頁標題#e#
that ‘organisations can be viewed as interaction systems in which those who succeed
possess certain personal traits’ (1982:37). These soft criteria can be even more critical in
China, since Chinese employees always posit interpersonal factors as central to business
success especially in Chinese state-owned enterprises.
Contextual criteria. Contextual criteria ‘deal with factors that result from the situation
in which the employee is performing’ (Gregersen, Hite & Black, 1996:716). As they
pointed, contextual criteria are determined by companies’ external business conditions
20
which may vary according to employees’ specific assignments and they may influence
both hard and soft criteria. Consideration of contextual criteria reduces the likelihood of
opportunity bias, which occurs due to factors beyond employee’s control (Peters,
O’Connor & Eulberg, 1985), for example, individual employees in the international
trade company would like their company to take exchange rate into account during the
appraisal process since the profit, as a main evaluation criterion, will be influenced by
this. Contextual criteria can affect an employee's perceived performance in ways that
are not recognized either by raters or those who later utilise the biased appraisal
information (Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell & McKellin, 1993; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1991;
Smither and Reilly, 1987).
Multiple Criteria. Each type of performance criteria has its own advantages and
defections, which may be magnified in a complicated organisational context (Gregersen,
Hite & Black, 1996). Moreover, each identifies ‘unique and important information for
appraisal’ (1996:716). Perceived appraisal accuracy does not rely on the utilisation of
any single types of performance criteria; instead, it relies on the proper utilisation of
each of these three types of criteria to obtain data from multiple sources. Thus, to
heighten perceived appraisal accuracy, organisations can benefit from the adoption of
mixed criteria which may comprise hard, soft and contextual criteria.
On the basis of what I have discussed, I therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 7: The number of multiple criteria types applied in PA is positively
associated with employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
Multiple Raters
A major barrier to accurate PA is quite often human, not technical, because the appraisal
process requires ‘analysis that depends on the human eye and brain’ in most cases
(Henderson, 1980:73). Relying on the appraisal of one rater will generally give a less
21
accurate picture of performance (Black & Mark, 1992; Black, 1992). In order to
overcome such deficiencies, researchers point that the utilisation of multiple raters may
be a good option. Utilisation of multiple raters contributes more than one perspective,#p#分頁標題#e#
provides insights into employees’ performance (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988), and may
also help to reduce any halo, primacy or first-impression errors (Bernardin and Beatty,
1984) from ‘differences in appraiser perception and demonstrated employee behaviour’
(Henderson, 1980:73).
Using multiple raters, however, does raise the issue of potential rater disagreement.
Raters will often have different perspectives when observing the behaviour of an
individual (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988). Raters will often have different perspectives
when observing the behaviour of an individual (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988). For the
most part, though, raters tend to agree on actual behaviours while disagreeing on their
meaning or interpretation (Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell & McKellin, 1993; Murphy &
Cleveland, 1991). These disagreements do not necessarily have to be resolved, for they
represent different perspectives (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988), and the information
may be utilised for different purposes (Landy & Fart, 1980; Murphy & Cleveland,
1991). Indeed, if all sources totally agreed, little benefit may accrue from the utilisation
of multiple raters (Campbell, 1982; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Considering about the
complexity of interpersonal factors which may aggravate the rater errors in China,
utilisation of multiple raters seems important to accurate PAs. On the basis of what I
have discussed, I therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 8: The number of multiple raters types applied in PA is positively
associated with employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
Chapter 3: Method
22
SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE
Two types of data were collected namely quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative data
used for this study was obtained by two methods. Firstly, questionnaires were sent to
210 individuals across different departments from 4 large Chinese state-owned
enterprises (SOE) in northeast China via middle managers of the company. In order to
establish a general PA assessment, instead of one specific industrial context, three
industrial sectors were selected including two machine building plants, a chemical plant
and a transportation enterprise. Then random sampling procedure was conducted to
select individual employees in each SOE. Each of these SOEs has developed a formal
PA system since late 1990’s and their employees are familiar with the current PA system.
The middle managers assisted to send the questionnaires to their staff and allowed them
one week to complete and return the questionnaires. 172 employees returned completed
surveys with a response rate of 81.9%. Secondly, this study also conducted an online
survey. An online questionnaire was set and the web link of this questionnaire was sent
to 35 random Chinese individuals whose email addresses were obtained from friends#p#分頁標題#e#
and relatives. These 35 individuals work for six different Chinese based large private,
public-listed, state-owned or joint venture companies including a construction company,
a consultant company, two internet companies and two pharmaceutical companies. The
company statuses are shown in table 1. Since I have communicated with the employees,
all of these companies are assured to have formal PA systems in their organisations.
Because the online questionnaire was set in a function that all of the questions are
compulsory, no missing values appeared in this data set. A three-week time period was
set for the respondents to complete the questionnaires. By the cut-off date, 22
questionnaires from five organisations were retrieved with a response rate of 62.9%.
Totally, 194 questionnaires were obtained, yielding an overall response rate of 73.0%.
The sample was male dominated and represented 60.3% (n=117), the remaining 39.7%
(n =77) of the respondents were female. The mean age was 33.48 and the mean tenure
of the employees was 10.84. Table 2 shows the demographics of study sample.
23
Table 1. Company statuses
No. of respondents Percentage (%) Company ownership Industry
44 22.7% SOE Machine building
41 21.1% SOE Machine building
35 18.0% SOE Transportation
52 26.8% SOE Chemical
15 7.7% Joint venture Pharmaceuticals
4 2.1% Public-listed Company Internet
1 0.5% SOE Consultant
1 0.5% Private Company Construction
1 0.5% Joint venture Pharmaceuticals
Table 2. Demographics of study sample
Variables
Numbers Percentage (%)
Gender Male 117 60.3
Female 77 39.7
Age
25 y 40 20.6
26-30y 57 29.4
31-35y 38 19.6
36-40y 15 7.7
41-45y 18 9.3
46-50y 17 8.8
51y 9 4.6
Tenure
5 y 91 46.9
6-10y 22 11.3
11-15y 26 13.4
16-20y 19 9.8
21-25y 12 6.2
26-30y 14 7.2
31y 10 5.2
The qualitative data was obtained through telephone interviews which I conducted with
four Chinese respondents from four companies respectively, including machine building
plant, pharmaceutical company, chemical plant and consultant company.
Before sending out the original questionnaire, I distributed it to one HR experts from
UK and two middle-class managers from Chinese companies for trial. The original
questionnaire was designed in English and then translated into Chinese for Chinese
users. Issues such as appropriate length of the questionnaire, difficulty of the question
language and vocabulary level used, clarity of the questions, and other suggestions from
24
the participants were adopted. All participants felt that the final version of the questions
were appropriate, fair, and non-threatening. A covering letter was designed to give a
supplemental explanation for the participants. All of the employees who participated in#p#分頁標題#e#
the survey were informed that the survey would remain anonymous, all of the data
cornering with the enterprise would be kept confidential and this study would be only
conducted for academic purposes.
MEASURES
Dependent Variables
Perceived appraisal accuracy. Vest, Scott and Tarnoff’s (1995) four-item measure of
perceived appraisal accuracy was adapted in this study. These items were designed to
measure several dimensions of perceived appraisal accuracy which include perceived
reliable and validity of the appraisal system, feedback and employees’ overall feelings.
Sample items from this scale are ‘The performance appraisal was consistent with how I
felt I performed on the task’, ‘The performance appraisal accurately reflected my true
performance on the task’. In response, it used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Independent Variables
Distributive justice. As an independent variable, distributive justice is supposed to have
a relationship with perceived appraisal accuracy. Four items were adapted from Niehoff
and Moorman’s questionnaire published in 1993, which can be used to measure
employees’ perceived fairness about their work result, rewards and/or merit (i.e. pay
level, performance evaluation, promotion). Responses were made by the 5-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items
25
are ‘My performance is evaluated fairly’, ‘My level of pay is fair’, ‘The system of
promotion is fair’.
Procedural justice. There are six items extracted from Niehoff and Moorman’s
measurement in 1993, which were utilised to test the perceived procedural justice. This
measure includes the extent to which the decision-making process incorporated a
mechanism to guarantee the unbiased decisions, the correct and detailed information,
substantial employees’ voice, and an appeal procedure as well. Responses were also
made using a 5-point scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sample items such as ‘Management makes job decisions in an unbiased manner’, ‘to
make job decisions, management collects accurate and complete information’ are listed
in the scale.
Interactional justice. Interactional justice was measured by six items taken from
Moorman’s nine-item interactional scale that was developed in 1991. These items
involve questions about the perceived interpersonal treatment from top management on
a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This
scale tested the important aspects of interactional justice including respect, faithfulness
and comprehensible explanations. Sample items in the scale are ‘When decisions are#p#分頁標題#e#
made about my job, management deals with me in truthful manner’, ‘When decisions
are made about my job, management treats me with kindness and consideration’, etc.
Interpersonal affect. Modifying from Tsui and Barry (1986), this study developed a
five-item scale to measure employees’ perception of interpersonal affect. Tsui and
Barry’s (1986) scale was used to measure the supervisor’s liking toward the subordinate
in question, however, an alterant perspective is adapted in this study that can pertain to
employee’s perception of overall interpersonal affect from the rater or multiple raters.
Sample items from the scale are ‘If I were to leave this company/job, I think the
management would try to get me to come back’, ‘It appears that my rater would like to
spend more time with me’ and ‘My rater tends to see eye-to-eye with me on most
important issues’. Responses were made using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
26
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
PA purpose. Perceptions regarding the two purposes of the performance appraisal were
measured with eight items: four items for administrative purpose and four items for
developmental purpose respectively. This eight-item scale was taken from a existing
factor structure (Cleveland, Murphy, and Williams’s 1989) for multiple purpose of
performance appraisal. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed (or
disagreed) that their PA was used for each particular purpose on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The sample items used to
assess employees’ perceptions of an administrative purpose were ‘Performance
appraisals help determine whether to promote, retain or terminate an employee’ and
‘ Performance appraisals determine what salary or merit someone should receive’. The
sample items used to assess employees’ perceptions of a developmental purpose were
‘Performance ratings are used to provide feedback about employee performance’ and
‘Performance appraisals identify individual strengths and weaknesses’ and
‘Performance appraisals determine which individuals need training’.
PA Criteria. In order to explore the relationship between the use of multiple raters and
perceived appraisal accuracy, I designed a multiple choice question. This question asked,
‘What criteria have you perceived to be used in the performance appraisal? A. Hard
criteria; B. Soft criteria; C. Contextual criteria’. Clear explanations about such three
choices were attached with the questionnaire which aimed to help the respondents to
fully understand this question. By requiring respondents to tick all the applied criteria in
their performance appraisal, the final result comes from the simple amount of the ticks#p#分頁標題#e#
and range from 0 to 3.
Multiple raters. In this item I also use a multiple choice question to survey employees’
perception of the utility of multiple raters. This question asked, ‘What type of
raters have you perceived to be used in the performance appraisal?’ According to
existing multi-source feedback and performance appraisal literature (Atwater, Brett,
&Charles, 2007; Gregersen, Hite, & Black, 1996), I listed six choices, ‘A. Self; B.
27
Subordinates; C. Peers; D. Direct supervisors; E. Customers/Clients; F. HR
professionals’. The measure of multiple raters provided a response range from 0 to 6,
depending on the number of rater types being used in the employee’s performance
appraisal process.
Control Variables
Because gender, age, and tenure may be associated with the dependent variable, they
were included as controls in the present study. Gender was measured as a dichotomous
variable coded such that 0 was female and 1 male. Age and tenure was measured in
integer years.
ANALYSIS
All quantitative data analyses are conducted using the SPSS 16.0 statistical software.
Factor analysis is performed to determine if the items in the scale were components of a
common factor as well as the validity of the factor. Linear regression is used in this
study to test the hypotheses. Healey (2005) pointed that the relationship between
independent variables and dependent variables may vary across the categories of the
control variables. Specifically, Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler & Purcell (2004) concluded that
‘attitudes and behaviours at work’ (2004:93) can change according to different
demographic characteristics. Hence, three demographic variables, namely gender, age
and tenure are used as control variables to enter in each regression analysis in this study.
Interview data are quoted in the discussion section to help deduce the underlying logic
behind the findings.
28
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results
FACTOR ANALYSIS
In order to assess the factorial validity of the items that made up my scales and
determine the factor scores of each factor, nine factor analyses (principal components,
varimax rotation) were performed. Items on perceived appraisal accuracy, distributive
justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, interpersonal affect, administrative
purpose and developmental purpose scales were examined respectively in the following
seven factor analyses which presented from Table 3 to Table 9. I attempted to determine
whether the items in each of these unmeasured latent factors will produce factor
loadings indicating that they can be considered to be part of a single construct, for this
purpose, a minimum eigenvalue of 1 as well as a minimum factor loading of 0.50 was
set to validate the unity of the unmeasured latent factors.#p#分頁標題#e#
Table 3. Results of factor analysis: Perceived appraisal accuracy
Factor
1
1. The performance appraisal was consistent with how I felt I performed on the task.
0.909
2. The performance appraisal accurately reflected my true performance on the task.
0.921
3. The performance appraisal accurately described my strengths and weaknesses. 0.830
4. The performance appraisal is accurate. 0.882
Eigenvalue 3.143
% of variance explained 78.567
Table 4. Results of factor analysis: Distributive justice
Factor
1
1. I am adequately rewarded for my effort. 0.850
2. My level of pay is fair. 0.895
3. My performance is evaluated fairly. 0.841
4. The system of promotion is fair. 0.810
Eigenvalue 2.886
% of variance explained 72.160
29
Table 5. Results of factor analysis: Procedural justice
Factor
1
1. To appraise my performance, management collect accurate and complete information.
0.846
2. Management clarifies why performance have been appraised and provides additional information
when requested by employee.
0.866
3. Management makes sure all employee concerns are heard before performance are appraised.
0.878
4. All performance appraisals are applied consistently across all affected employees in the same group
or workplace.
0.878
5. Management appraises performance in an unbiased manner. 0.866
6. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal performance appraised by management.
0.832
Eigenvalue 4.450
% of variance explained 74.164
Table 6. Results of factor analysis: Interactional justice
Factor
1
1. During performance appraisal, management offers explanations that make sense to me.
0.848
2. Management explains very clearly about the performance appraisal to me. 0.900
3. Management offers adequate justification for appraising my performance. 0.878
4. When decisions are made about my job, management deals with me in truthful manner.
0.900
5. During performance appraisal, management treats me with kindness and consideration.
0.877
6. During performance appraisal, management treats me with respect and dignity. 0.869
Eigenvalue 4.636
% of variance explained 77.267
Table 7. Results of factor analysis: Interpersonal affect
Factor
1
1. My rater tends to see eye-to-eye with me on most important issues. 0.834
2. It appears that my rater would like to get to know me better. 0.888
3. I regard my rater to be a good friend. 0.866
4. If I were to leave this company/job, I think the management would try to get me to come back.
0.807
5. It appears that my rater would like to spend more time with me. 0.856
Eigenvalue 3.618
% of variance explained 72.370
30
Table 8. Results of factor analysis: Administrative purpose#p#分頁標題#e#
Factor
1
1. Performance appraisals help determine whether to promote, retain or terminate an employee.
0.814
2. Performance appraisals determine what salary or merit someone should receive.
0.865
3. The performance appraisal process documents and recognizes employee performance.
0.921
4. Performance appraisals determine which employees are not performing well. 0.855
Eigenvalue 2.989
% of variance explained 74.722
Table 9. Results of factor analysis: Developmental purpose
Factor
1
1. Performance ratings let employees know where they stand. 0.882
2. Performance ratings are used to provide feedback about employee performance.
0.903
3. Performance appraisals identify individual strengths and weaknesses. 0.921
4. Performance appraisals determine which individuals need training. 0.897
Eigenvalue 3.246
% of variance explained 81.150
The results of the first factor analysis yielded one factor for the scale of perceived
appraisal accuracy, the factor loadings ranged from 0.830 to 0.921 indicating that the
four items could be verified to measure a single construct. The factors accounted for
78.567% of the total variance (Table 3). The second factor analysis corresponded to the
items that measured distributive justice. One factor was extracted, the factor loadings
ranged from 0.810 to 0.895 and the factor accounted for 72.160% of the total variance
(Table 4). This result indicated that those four items measured one concept and no items
would be discarded. The third factor analysis measured the scale of procedural justice,
one factor was obtained. This factor accounted for 74.164% of the total variance (Table
5) and the factor loadings ranged from 0.832 to 0.878 indicating those six items reliably
measured the concept of procedural justice.
Table 6 listed six items that related to interactional justice. They belonged to one factor
that accounted for 77.267% of the total variance. The factor loadings ranged from 0.848
to 0.900 which suggested that no items would be discarded when this variable was
31
created. Although as mentioned above in the literature review in this study, interactional
justice can be conceptualized as having at least two components (Brockner &
Wiesenfeld, 1996; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997) which were named as informational
justice and interpersonal justice, the principal components factor analysis did not extract
two factors in this measure (using an eigenvalue cutoff of 1). The result implied that
these two components actually measured the same psychometric scale and validly
created a single construct. The next factor analysis obtained one factor for the scale of
interpersonal affect, the factor loadings ranged from 0.807 to 0.888 and the factor
accounted for 72.370% of the total variance (Table 7) suggesting that those five items#p#分頁標題#e#
created a valid variable. The sixth factor analysis yielded one factor for the scale of
administrative purpose, the factor loadings ranged from 0.814 to 0.921 and the factor
accounted for 74.722% of the total variance (Table 8). The four items for this scale were
reliable and belonged to one construct. The seventh factor analysis yielded one factor
for the scale of developmental purpose, the factor loadings ranged from 0.882 to 0.921
and the factor accounted for 81.150% of the total variance (Table 9) indicating that
those four items measured one concept and there was no need to discard any items.
CORRELATION AND RELIABLILITY COEFFICIENT
Seven unmeasured latent variables were created after factor analyses were conducted.
Consistent with three demographic variables and two single variables, there were twelve
variables in total. Table 10 contains the means, standard deviations, and correlations for
all measures. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alphas) appear on the diagonal of the
table. The standard deviations of the main study variables range from 0.864 to 1.438.
The  coefficients of the variables ranged from 0.870 to 0.940, all of the Cronbach’s
alphas coefficients were more than 0.8, demonstrating that the survey items were proper
indicators of their respective constructs (Muchinsky, 2004).
32
Table 10. Means, standard deviations, scaled variable reliabilities, and correlations among study variables
N Mean S.D. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
1. Gender 194 0.60 0.491 (—)
2. Age 194 33.48 8.925 0.005 (—)
3. Tenure 194 10.84 10.122 -0.006 0.939** (—)
4. Perceived appraisal accuracy 194 3.53 0.953 0.089 -0.124 -0.133 (0.909)
5. Distributive justice 194 3.32 0.947 0.131 -0.191** -0.229** 0.816** (0.870)
6. Procedural justice 194 3.53 0.905 0.141 -0.161* -0.168* 0.728** 0.759** (0.930)
7. Interactional justice 194 3.62 0.892 0.131 -0.110 -0.125 0.688** 0.778** 0.888** (0.940)
8. Interpersonal affect 194 3.53 0.879 0.151* -0.145* -0.151 0.625** 0.646** 0.729** 0.783** (0.904)
9. Administrative purpose 194 3.67 0.864 0.022 -0.120 -0.110 0.623** 0.696** 0.745** 0.712** 0.613** (0.885)
10. Developmental purpose 194 3.71 0.867 0.038 -0.161 -0.152* 0.684** 0.705** 0.819** 0.802** 0.740** 0.791** (0.922)
11. Multiple Criteria 194 1.74 0.873 0.026 -0.182* -0.239** 0.072 0.102 0.134 0.155* 0.156* 0.005 0.094 (—)
12. Multiple Raters 194 2.41 1.438 -0.002 0.102 0.081 0.326** 0.283** 0.331** 0.328** 0.335** 0.326** 0.374** 0.329** (—)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Entries in parentheses are Cronbach’s alphas, (—) means no reliability value due to single-item status.
33
TEST OF THE HYPOTHESIS
The results of regression analyses are present in Table 11. The multiple regression#p#分頁標題#e#
analyses contained three demographic variables and eight main study variables. The
whole model is fitting and significant (R2=0.714, F=41.312, p<0.01). Hypothesis 1
predicted that distributive justice is positively related to perceived appraisal accuracy,
even after when the other independent variables have been taken into account. As
shown in Table 11, distributive justice is positively related to perceived appraisal
accuracy (=0.585, p<0.01). The hypothesis is therefore supported.
Hypothesis 2 addressed the relationship between procedural justice and perceived
appraisal accuracy. Table 11 showed that there was a significant positive relationship
between procedural justice and perceived appraisal accuracy (=0.281, p<0.01).
However, the relationship is not as strong as that of distributive justice. Hypothesis 2 is
therefore supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that perceived interactional justice is positively related to the
perceived appraisal accuracy. It was supported by data in Table 11. Together with other
variables, interactional justice made a significant positive contribution to perceived
appraisal accuracy (=0.201, p<0.01), weaker than the first two variables. Hypothesis 3
is therefore supported.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that the perception of interpersonal affect during performance
appraisal will positively affect employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy. The results
suggested that the perception of interpersonal affect (=0.352, p<0.01) have significant
positive relationship with perceived appraisal accuracy. Hence hypothesis 4 is
supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that the perception of administrative purpose is negatively
related to employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy, whereas hypothesis 6 predicted that
the perception of developmental purpose is positively related to employee’s perceived
34
appraisal accuracy. However, the results suggest that both administrative purpose
(=0.264, p<0.01) and developmental purpose (=0.213, p<0.01) have significant
positive relationship with perceived appraisal accuracy. Therefore, only hypothesis 6
was supported.
Hypothesis 7 predicted that the number of multiple criteria types applied in performance
appraisal is positively related to the perceived appraisal accuracy. As shown in Table 11,
the number of multiple criteria types applied in performance appraisal (=-0.039,
p>0.05) have no significant relationships with perceived appraisal accuracy. Therefore,
I conclude that the number of multiple criteria types applied in performance appraisal is
not related to perceived appraisal accuracy; hence hypothesis 7 is not supported.
Hypothesis 8 predicted that the number of multiple raters types applied in performance
appraisal is positively related to the perceived appraisal accuracy. However, from Table#p#分頁標題#e#
11, the number of multiple raters types applied in performance appraisal has no
significant positive relationship with perceived appraisal accuracy at the 0.05 level
while  equals to 0.064.
Table 11. Multiple regression analyses summary (N=194)
Perceived Appraisal Accuracy
B SEB 
Gender -0.057 0.083 -0.028
Age -0.011 0.013 -0.100
Tenure 0.013 0.012 0.130
1.Distributive justice 0.585 0.042 0.585**
2.Procedural justice 0.281 0.041 0.281**
3.Interactional justice 0.201 0.040 0.201**
4.Interpersonal affect 0.352 0.041 0.352**
5.Administrative purpose 0.264 0.041 0.264**
6.Developmental purpose 0.213 0.041 0.213**
7.Multiple criteria -0.045 0.052 -0.039
8.Multiple rators 0.045 0.033 0.064
R square 0.714
Adjusted R square 0.697
F 41.312**
Note. *p <0.05; **p<0.01
35
Chapter 5: Discussion
Table 12. Results of hypothesis
H1 Perceived distributive justice is positively associated with employee’s perceived
appraisal accuracy.
supported
H2 Perceived procedural justice is positively associated with employee’s perceived
appraisal accuracy.
supported
H3 Perceived interactional justice is positively associated with employee’s perceived
appraisal accuracy.
supported
H4 The perception of interpersonal affect during PA is positively associated with
employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
supported
H5 The perception of administrative purpose is negatively associated with employee’s
perceived appraisal accuracy.
unsupported
H6 The perception of developmental purpose is positively associated with employee’s
perceived appraisal accuracy.
supported
H7 The number of multiple criteria types applied in PA is positively associated with
employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
unsupported
H8 The number of multiple raters types applied in PA is positively associated with
employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
unsupported
Building on performance appraisal literature and Chinese organisational culture theories,
this exploratory study was the latest attempt to examine the determinants of perceived
appraisal accuracy in Chinese organisational context. The results supported five of the
hypotheses, showing that the perception of distributive justice, procedural justice,
interactional justice, interpersonal affect and developmental purpose played a positive
role on perceived appraisal accuracy. The findings also confirmed that the perceived
administrative purpose of PA was positively related to perceived appraisal accuracy,
this result was unexpected. Another interesting finding in this study is the fact that the
last two hypotheses were not supported; neither the perceived utility of multiple raters
nor multiple criteria had a significant relationship with perceived appraisal accuracy.#p#分頁標題#e#
The results of hypothesis are shown in table 12. The following section will provide
some possible reasons and explanations for the results. I conduct this by utilising both
the literature and the interviews conducted with the respondents in China.
36
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Firstly, the results obtained from this research provide support that perceived
distributive justice, as hypothesized, is positively related to employees’ perceived
performance accuracy. This is consistent with existing literature on this subject
(Williams, 1998; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Employees value the fairness of the
outcomes as the most important factor of a PA system. They compare the perceived
fairness of performance feedback with their own perception of the achieved
performance and will only be satisfied when they think the outcomes are fair. From this
point of view, the hypothesis that perceived distributive justice can predict positive
perceived performance accuracy is true.
Procedural justice is confirmed to have a direct relationship with the employees’
perceived performance accuracy. As with the case of distributive justice, this was
consistent with the existing findings (Folger & Lewis, 1993; Folger & Cropanzano,
1998). Employees highlight the opportunity to participate in the performance appraisal
system (Steers & Lee, 1983), either ‘by means of voice’ or ‘direct participation in the
operation’ of the performance appraisal system. This logic was also substantiated by the
findings collected from the interviews that I conducted with four employees. During the
interview sessions, all of the employees, to some extent, expressed satisfaction if they
had the rights to participate in the decision-making process for the next year’s appraisal
criteria. As one of my interviewees emphasized,
‘Participating in the target-making process can help me to reduce the potential risks that I
can not control during the business.’
(Middle manager, 33-year old, female, pharmaceutical company)
As this interviewee mentioned, the ‘potential risks’ always derived from the rapidly
changing environment, which, in her mind, were beyond her controls, therefore, in that
situation, she could not achieve the original targets. It is clear to demonstrate that, at this
37
level of participation, employees’ perceived accuracy of PA can be heightened by
positive procedural justice. In the same vein, this finding is consistent with Hofstede’s
(1980; 1993) theory that dominant Chinese cultural values are high uncertainty
avoidance. The other interviewees also talked about their perceptions about the present
PA system. Generally, a PA system was deemed to be fair and accurate when it can
provide adequate information about the criteria. One interviewee highlighted the#p#分頁標題#e#
opportunities to discuss with the direct supervisors or HR professionals, whereas more
interviewees are reluctant to share their true opinions during such meetings especially
when the topics were regarding with salary, promotion or attitude towards the raters.
One interviewee explained that the reason as to why he kept silent before the
supervisors was because he did not want to show his ambition openly and tried to keep
harmony with others. However, such culture phenomena may be an obstacle for
employees to perceive an accurate appraisal system. In order to enhance employees’
satisfaction on PA system, Chinese organisations should foster more open and confident
business culture and encourage their employees to get involved in the PA procedure.
Overall, the results replicated the Western based studies on procedural justice in
Chinese context, as summarized by one interviewee,
‘By participating in the process, I feel the PA system was accurate.’
(Consultant, 24-year old, male, consultant company)
Thirdly, interactional justice, as hypothesized, is also found to be positively related to
perceived appraisal accuracy. This is consistent with the literature I cited above (Li &
Butler, 2004; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). As they stated, employees were concerned
with the quality of the interpersonal treatment they received from the top management.
By being treated with respect and fairness, the employees would repay immediate
commitment to PA system. In order to explore the inner reasons as to why employees
highlighted interactional justice, I conducted interviews with four respondents.
Encouragingly, the findings from the interviews enlighten us on this issue. Some
interviewees viewed the rapid changing appraisal criteria which their company utilised
38
over the years as a main negative impact on their emotions towards the PA system,
because they felt uneasily to adapt to them. The following interview quote illustrates
this concern.
‘The problem of the PA system is that this system is too complicated for me to understand,
the handbook comprises hundreds of items, formulae and notes… and they (supervisors)
continually provide updates to me, sometimes I can remember them but sometimes I can
not.’
(Engineer, 50-year old, male, machine building plant)
Since Chinese people incline to avoid uncertainty in their life (Hofstede, 1980; 1993),
their pursuit of a ‘stable’ (this word recurrently appeared during the interviews) PA
system is understandable. It is clear that the companies in China should make greater
efforts to improve their PA systems under such cultural values. In spite of that, the
interviewees still mentioned that if the company could provide adequate and clear
information as well as regular face-to-face communications around these changes, they#p#分頁標題#e#
would be happier and feel the PA system to be fairer. The interviewees meanwhile
emphasized their positive feelings towards the respect and dignity:
‘For me, the most important thing is that my input is equally rewarded, however, sometimes
things are worse than I expected, in that case, my feelings will vary depending on whether
HR department can carefully and honestly provide explanations to me as well as whether
they can respond to me in time.’
(Middle manager, 33-year old, female, pharmaceutical company)
This shows that although distributive justice seems to be a longer-lasting and more
important effect in employee’s mind, interactional justice still positively contributes to
employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy, especially when the outcomes are negative.
Thus, companies should pay attention to interactional justice when they run business in
China.
39
The forth hypothesis was also supported by this study. In accordance with the existing
laboratory studies who argued that interpersonal affect had a significant positive
influence on performance ratings (Robbins & DeNisi, 1998), the results from this
research indicated that employees who perceived interpersonal affect during the PA
process, would view their present PA system as fair and accurate. This assumption was
also buttressed by the findings I obtained from the interviews. One of the interviewees
pointed that, if his supervisor showed kindness and friendship to him, he would believe
that the supervisor knew him well. Whereas another interviewee, who did not perceive
high interpersonal affect during the PA process, said that although she did not think her
raters would evaluate her in a biased manner, she was worried that the raters might not
‘put themselves in my (her) shoes’. What is more, all of the interviewees highlighted the
essentiality of keeping good relationship (i.e. Guanxi) with their supervisors and peers
for a better career path. Comparing with their foreign partners, Chinese employees put
more emphasis on Guanxi and harmonious company environment. Based on this logic, I
concluded that the perception of interpersonal affect was positively related to perceived
appraisal accuracy.
Another result, I found it a little surprising in this study that the negative relationship
between administrative purpose and employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy, as
hypothesized, was not supported. Incompatible with the original hypothesis,
administrative purpose was found to be positively associated with employee’s perceived
appraisal accuracy in this study. The reason as to why Chinese employees were not
reluctant to utilise PA for administrative purpose might partly because of China’s long
history of exclusively employing PA for administrative purpose in organisations in the#p#分頁標題#e#
past. As several interviewees mentioned briefly during the interviews that they just took
it for granted that PA should be used for administrative purpose and they did not think
that would be a problem for them. In this sense, Chinese employees might find it much
easier than their foreign colleagues to comply with the feedback of the PA and in turn
be easier to be satisfied with the present PA system. Another rational explanation
referred to this result can be found from Prince and Lawler’s (1986) study, which
40
suggested that if the utilisation of administrative purpose strengthened ‘appraisal-reward
contingencies’, it would positively contribute to employee’s perceived appraisal
accuracy. This illustrated that the perception of administrative purpose for PA in
Chinese organisations would be a constructive contribution for employee’s perceived
appraisal accuracy.
The sixth hypothesis that employee’s perception of developmental purpose is positively
related to perceived appraisal accuracy is supported in this study. This is consistent with
the existing literature (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000; Ash, 1994). Developmental
activities such as determining individual training needs and identifying individual
strengths and weaknesses appeared to enhance employees’ sense of PA accuracy
because they matched the employees’ need on personal development. In turn,
employees would positively respond to developmental purpose. No significant
divergence appears when I replicate the western approach in Chinese context.
Another interesting finding is that the result does not provide support for a significant
link between the number of multiple criteria types applied in PA and employee’s
perceived appraisal accuracy. Some supports are available from the existing literature,
suggesting that the number of multiple criteria types applied in PA does not always
explain employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy. A relevant research conducted by
Gregersen, Hite & Black (1996) exploring the determinants for perceived accuracy of
expatriate PAs found that the use of multiple criteria was not a strong and significant
predictor of perceived expatriate PA accuracy. For domestic appraisal, employees may
even require less criteria types than international assignments, due to the less
complicacy of domestic appraisal. In deed, only 41.2 percent of the employees reported
the utilisation of contextual criteria that applied in their PAs, comparing with the higher
frequency of utilising soft criteria (47.4%) and hard criteria (70.6%). This finding
indicates that although it was considered that interpersonal factors were in the central of
business success in China, Chinese companies still relied most on hard criteria.
The result from this study shows that the number of multiple rater types applied in PA#p#分頁標題#e#
41
and employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy fails to yield any significant effects. This
is consistent with the literature in this area (Gregersen, Hite & Black, 1996) which
suggested that utilisation of more rater types was not significantly related to the
perceived accuracy of expatriate PAs. Utilising multiple rater types is believed to
provide a wider portrayal of performance than only adopting single rater type. However,
this study has not significantly supported this argument. Future studies are required to
examine more carefully the contributions of multiple raters that applied in Chinese
organisations.
Chapter 6: Limitation and Implication
LIMITATIONS
Relying on self-report data retrieved from questionnaires, the findings of this study
should be considered to suffer from some limitations. Firstly, the sample size that I
chose to conduct the quantitative analysis is still relatively small. A small sample will
probably reduce the reliability of the quantitative analyses. According to Bryman and
Cramer (2005), the reliability of the factor analysis will somehow rely on the size of the
sample. Although there is no consensus on what the size should be, there is an
agreement in statistical analysis, that the number of participants should at least
predominate over the number of variables by five to one and not be less than 100
individuals whilst 200 participants or more will be better. In the case of this study,
although 178 employees participated in this survey, the sample size is still not big
enough to show confidence that the same results will emerge reliably in a second
sample.
Secondly, the design of this study was cross-sectional, and all measures were obtained
during the same time period. Hence, establishing sequential relationships between
predictors and outcomes is admittedly difficult. Utilising longitudinal data to replicate
42
the research model in future research might be to improve the reliability of the findings.
The third limitation to this study is that the research design may introduce the
possibility of common method bias. As Boswell & Boudreau (2000) mentioned, ‘This
can be problematic because of the potential inflation of observed relationships caused
by common method variance and questions about causation’. For example, the
relationship between employees’ perceived performance accuracy and perceived
distributive justice could be reverse. If employees perceived the performance appraisal
system to be accurate, they might perceive their rewards as distributed fairly.
Furthermore, utilising self-report measurement, this study may not completely eliminate
the possibility of social desirability biases (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), which means
‘respondents may respond to survey questions in a consistent manner’; hence the#p#分頁標題#e#
addressed relationship in the research may be inflated. However, by introducing an
anonymous questionnaire, I believe that the magnitude of the inflation of relationships
should be relatively small in this study.
The fourth limitation to this study is that although I have purposely chosen a diverse
sample of employees in terms of demographics from several different organisations in
different industries, the majority of the respondents came from four Chinese SOEs that
three of them are manufacturing companies. So the generalizability is relatively
questionable. Future research should investigate variations in organisational hierarchy
as well as more representative multiple organisations and industries.
IMPLICATIONS
Despite these limitations, this study revealed significant directions for future studies.
Firstly, future research can explore the correlations between the independent variables
that are addressed in this study. For example, researchers can examine whether
employees’ perceived use of PA is positively related to employees’ perceived
43
organisational justice. By clearly investigating the relationship among these
independent variables, researchers can address the relative importance of each
determinant to perceived performance accuracy. Researchers can also explore some new
potential variables that may contribute to perceived appraisal accuracy as well as adding
some new control variables, for example, job positions.
A second implication for future research is to examine the consequences whether
current performance appraisal systems in organisations are changed. Nowadays,
organisations are facing complex, rapidly changing environments. Since China's
economy has grown by almost 10 percent annually in the last two decades, the
organisations in China ‘have undergone far-reaching changes’ (Sun, 2000).
Organisations are attempting to utilise new managerial tools to motivate their
employees to improve their organisational outcomes. It is a crucial implication that
organisations need to reform their existing PA systems and find more effective ways to
satisfy their employees therefore motivate them. As a result, future research can attend
to the issues as to how employees would respond to a changing PA system.
Chapter 7: Conclusion
The findings of this study suggest that employees’ perception of distributive, procedural
and interactional justice, interpersonal affect, administrative and developmental purpose
are all important antecedents in predicting employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
They are all positively associated with employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy.
Furthermore, distributive justice is particularly important for companies to enhance
employees’ perception on an accurate PA system. The overall result is consistent with#p#分頁標題#e#
existing research on the area of employee’s perceived appraisal accuracy. Another
meaningful finding is that although this study did not measure basic national culture and
values, quotations from the interviews indicate that the Chinese culture deeply
influenced employees’ attitudes and reactions towards organisations’ PA system and it
44
is deemed that organisations would benefit from open, honest and modest business
culture.
Word Count: 13345
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Dr. Tsai Chin-Ju for providing me the opportunity to be supervised
by her. Without her patience and guidance, this dissertation would not be possible. I am
also grateful for the unconditional love and support of my friends, family and relatives.
They shared their knowledge with me and helped me send out and obtain the
questionnaires in China. It is their unselfish support that can ensure me to successfully
complete this academic dissertation.
45
REFERENCE
Antonioni, D. (1996) ‘Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process’.
Organizational Dynamics, 25: 24-38.
Ash, A. (1994) ‘Participants’ reactions to subordinate appraisal of managers: Results of
a pilot’. Public Personnel Management, 23: 237-256.
Ashford, S. (1989) ‘Self-assessments in organizations: A literature review and
integrative model’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 33-174.
Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., & Charles, A. C. (2007) ‘Multisource feedback: Lessons
learned and implications for practice’. Human Resource Management, 46(2): 285-307.
Balzer, W.K., & Sulsky, L.M. (1990) ‘Performance appraisal effectiveness’. In: K. R.
Murphy, F. E. Saal (ed.) Psychology in organizations: integrating science and
practice:133-156. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991) ‘Congruence of self and others’ leadership
ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance’. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 40 (4), 437-454.
Bass, B. M. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L., (2000) ‘Development of a measure of workplace
deviance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 349-360.
Bernardin, J. H., & Beatty, R. W. (1984) Performance appraisal: assessing human
behavior at work. Boston: Kent.
Bernardin, H. J., & Cascio, W. E. (1984) ‘Personnel appraisal and the law’. In R. A.
Schuler & S. A. Youngblood (ed.) Readings in personnel and human resource
management, Paul, MN.: West Publishing.
46
Bernardin, H. J., & Villanova. P. (1986) ‘Performance appraisal’. In E.Locke (ed.)
Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.#p#分頁標題#e#
Bian, Y. (1994) ‘Guanxi and the allocation of urban jobs in China’. China Quarterly,
140: 971-999.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986) ‘Interactional Justice: Communication criteria of
fairness’. In R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard & M. Bazerman (ed.) Research on negotiation
in organizations, 1: 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L. (1987) ‘Interactional Fairness Judgments: The Influence of
Causal Accounts’. Social Justice Research, 1(2): 199-218.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988) ‘Causal accounts and managing
organizational conflict: is it enough to say it's not my fault?’. Communication Research,
15(4): 381-399.
Bjorkman, I. & Fan, X. (2002) ‘Human resource management and the performance of
Western Firms in China’. Human Resource Management, 13(6): 853–864.
Black, J. S. (1992) ‘Evaluating the performance of global managers’. Journal of
International Compensation and Benefits, 1: 35--40.
Black, J. S., & Mark E. M. (1992) Global assignments: Successfully expatriating and
repatriating international managers. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
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), 283-299.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996) ‘An integrative framework for explaining
47
reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures’.
Psychological Bulletin, 120: 189-208.
Brown, M., & Benson, J. (2003) ‘Rated to exhaustion? Reactions to performance
appraisal processes’. Industrial Relations Journal, 34(1): 67-81.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D., (2005) Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A
guide for social scientists. Hove: Routledge.
Campbell, J. E. (1982) ‘Editorial: Some remarks from an outgoing editor’. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67:691-700.
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970) Managerial
Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carroll, S. J., & Schneier, C. E. (1982). Performance appraisal and review systems: The
identification, measurement, and development of performance in organizations.
Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.
Cascio, W. E. (1986) Managing human resources. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chen, M. (1995) Asian Management Systems: Chinese, Japanese and Korean Styles of
Business. New York: Routledge.
Cleveland, J. N., Mohammed, S., Skattebo, A. L., & Sin, H. P. (2003) ‘Multiple
purposes of performance appraisal: A replication and extension’. Poster presented at the#p#分頁標題#e#
annual conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Orlando, FL.
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.
48
Coens, T. & Jenkins, M. (2000) Abolishing Performance Appraisals. San Francisco,
CA.: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cox, T. J., & Nkomo, S. M. (1986) ‘Differential performance appraisal criteria: A field
study of black and white managers’. Group and Organization Studies, 11(1-2): 101-119.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004) ‘Exploring organizationally
directed citizenship behaviour: Reciprocity or ‘It’s my job’?’. Journal of Management
Studies, 41(1): 85-106.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997) ‘Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling
through the maze’. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (ed.) International review of
industrial and organizational psychology, 12: 317-372. New York: John Wiley.
Davies, H. A., Leung, T., Luk, S., & Wong, Y. (1995) ‚The benefits of guanxi: The Value
of Relationships in Developing the Chinese Market’. Industrial Marketing Management,
24: 207-214.
Dessler, G. (1999) ‘How to earn your employees’ commitment’. Academy of
Management Executive, 13: 58-67.
Dickinson, T. L. (1987) ‘Designs for evaluating the validity and accuracy of ratings’.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40(1):1-21.
Dipboye, R.L. (1985) ‘Some Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in
Appraisals’. Academy of Management Executive, 10(1): 116-27.
Drenth, P.J.D. (1984) ‘Personnel appraisal’. In P.J.D. Drenth, H. K. Thierry, P. J.
Williams, & C. J. de Wolff (eds.) Handbook of work and organizational psychology.
New York: Wiley.
Dunnette, M. D., & Borman, W. C. (1979) ‘Personnel selection and classification
systems’. Annual Review of Psychology, 30: 477-525.
49
Ebert, R. J., Griffin, R. W. (2002) Business 6th edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Erez, M., & Kanfer, F. H. (1983) ‘The Role of Goal Acceptance in Goal Setting and
Task Performance’. Academy of Management Review, 8(3): 454-463.
Farris, G. F., & Lim, F. G. (1969) ‘Effects of Performance on Leadership, Influence,
Satisfaction, and Subsequent Performance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53:
490-497.
Folger, R. (1987) ‘Distributive and Procedural Justice in the Workplace’. Social Justice
Research, 1(2): 143-159.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998) Organizational Justice and Human Resource
Management. California: Sage.
Folger, R., & Lewis, D. (1993) ‘Self-Appraisal and Fairness in Evaluations’. In R.#p#分頁標題#e#
Cropanzano (ed.) Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gaines, H. (1994) ‘Employees get satisfaction, but only when properly motivated’.
Industrial Management, 36: 2-3.
Gao, G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Gudykunst, W. (1996) ‘Chinese communication processes’.
In M. H. Bond (ed.) The Handbook of Chinese Psychology: 280-293. Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.
Graen, G. (1976) ‘Role Making Processes Within Complex Organizations’. In M. D.
Dunette (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1201-1245.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Greenberg, J. (1987) ‘Using diaries to promote Procedural Justice in Performance
Appraisals’. Social Justice Research, 1(2): 19-234.
50
Greenberg, J. (1990) ‘Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow’. Journal
of Management, 16(2): 399-433.
Gregersen, H. B., Hite, J. M., & Black, J. S. (1996) ‘Expatriate performance appraisal in
U.S. multinational firms’. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4): 711-738.
Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. (1993) ‘Strategy as stretch and leverage’. Harvard
Business Review, 71(2): 75-84.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988) ‘A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer,
and peer-supervisor ratings’. Personnel Psychology, 41: 43-62.
Healay, J. F. (2005) Statistics: a tool for social research 7th edition. Belmont, CA.:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Henderson, R. I. (1980) Performance appraisal: theory to practice. Reston, Va.: Reston
Pub. Co.
Hofstede, G. (1980) ‘Motivation, leadership, and organizations: Do American theories
apply abroad?’. Organizational Dynamics, Summer: 42-63.
Hofstede, G. (1993) ‘Cultural constraints in management theories’. Academy of
Management Executive, 7: 81-94.
Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). ‘Performance appraisal
process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use?’.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3): 321-68.
Jaeger, A. M. (1986) ‘Organization development and national culture: where's the fit?’.
Academy of Management Review, 11: 178-90.
Kingstrom, P. O., & Mainstone, L. E. (1985) ‘An Investigation of the Rater-Ratee
Acquaintance and Rater Bias’. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 641-653.
51
Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F., & Westwood, R. I. (1991) ‘Chinese conflict preferences and
negotiating behavior: cultural and psychological influences’. Organization Studies, 12:
365-86.
Kreitner, R. (2007) Management 10th edition. Houghton Mifflin.
Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002) ‘Relationship between organizational#p#分頁標題#e#
justice and employee work outcomes: a cross national study’. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23: 1-18.
Lambert, E. (2003) ‘The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff’. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 31(2): 155-168.
Landy. F. J., Bames-Farrelt. J., & Cleveland, J. N. (1980) ‘Perceived fairness and
accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up’. Journal of Applied Psychology,
65(3). 355-356.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980) ‘Performance Rating’. Psychological Bulletin, 87(1):
72-107.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983) The Measurement of Work Performance. New York:
Academic Press.
Lawler, E. E. (1981) ‘Merit pay: Fact or fiction’. Management Review, 70(4): 50-53.
Leung, K. & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2003) ‘Human resource management practices in
international joint ventures in mainland China: a justice analysis’. Human Resource
Management Review, 13: 85-105.
Li, A., & Butler, A. B. (2004) ‘The Effects of Participation in Goal Setting And Goal
Rationales on Goal Commitment: An Exploration of Justice Mediators’. Journal of
Business & Psychology, 19(1): 37-52.
52
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New
York: Plenum Press.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) ‘Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal
Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-year Odyssey’. American Psychologist, 57(9):
705-7l7.
Locker, A. H., & Teel, K. S. (1988) ‘Assessment: Appraisal Trends’. Personnel Journal,
67: 139-145.
Longenecker, C. O. & Goff, S. J. (1992) ‘Performance appraisal effectiveness: A matter
of perspective’. Advanced Management Journal, 57(2): 18-23.
Lowin, A., & Craig, J. R. (1968) ‘The Influence of Level of Performance on Managerial
Style: An Experimental Object-Lesson in the Ambiguity of Correlational Data’.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 3: 440-458.
Martin, T. N. (1992) ‘Predictors of turnover for inbound and outbound employees’.
Telemarketing Magazine, 10: 60-64.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991) ‘Expatriate performance appraisal: Problems and
solutions’. In M. Mendenlhall & G. Oddou (ed.) Readings and cases in international
human resource management. Boston: PWS-Kent.
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J.R.P. (1965) ‘Split roles in performance appraisal’.
Harvard Business Review, 43: 123-129.
Mikula, G., Petrik, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990) ‘What People Regard As Just and Unjust:
Types and Structures of Everyday Experiences of Injustice’. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 20:133-149.
Milkovich, G. T., & Boudreau, J. W. (1997) Human resource management. Burr Ridge,#p#分頁標題#e#
IL.: Irwin.
53
Moorman, R. H. (1991) ‘The relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee
citizenship?’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2004) Psychology Applied to Work 7th edition. Florence KY:
Thomson/Wadsworth
Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1991) Performance appraisal: An organizational
perspective. Boston: Allyn & 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: 527-556.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) ‘The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious
Alteration of Judgments’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35: 250-256.
Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1993) ‘Mentor Reactions to Protégés:
An Experiment with Managers’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43: 266-278.
Organ, D. W. (1990) ‘The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior’. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (ed.) Research in organizational behavior, 12: 43-72.
Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.
Ostroff, C. (1993) ‘Rater perceptions, satisfaction and performance ratings’. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66: 345-356.
Peters, L. H., O'Connor E. J. & Eulberg, J. R. (1985) ‘Situational constraints: Sources,
consequences, and future considerations’. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (ed.) Research in
personnel and human resource management, 3: 79-113. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1998) The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First.
Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
54
Prince, J. B., & Lawler, E. E. (1986) ‘Does salary discussion hurt the developmental
performance appraisal?’. Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Decision
Processes, 37:357-375.
Redding, S.G. (1991) The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Regan, D. T., Straus, E., & Fazio, R. (1974) ‘Liking and the Attribution Bias’ . Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 10: 385-97.
Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. (1998) ‘Mood vs. Interpersonal Affect: Identifying
Process and Rating Distortions in Performance Appraisal’. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 12(3): 313-325
Schuler, R. S., & Huber, V. L. (1993) Personnel and human resource management. Paul,
MN.: West Publishing
Seldon, S. C., Ingraham, P. W., & Jacobson, W. (2001) ‘Human Resource Practices in
State Government: Findings from a National Survey’. Public Administration Review, 61:
598-614.
Shapiro, D. L. (1991) ’The Effects of Explanations on Negative Reactions to Deceit’.#p#分頁標題#e#
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 614-630.
Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, H. B., & Barry, B. (1994) ‘Explanations: What Factors Enhance
Their Perceived Adequacy?’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
58: 346-368.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997) ‘Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive, procedural and interactional justice’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:
434-443.
Smither, J. W., & Reilly, R. R. (1987) ‘True intercorrelations among job components,
time delay in rating and rater intelligence as determinants of accuracy in performance
55
ratings’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40: 369-91.
Stein, T. (1996) ‘Treat workers like partners’. Success, 43: 6.
Steers, R. M., & Lee, T. W. (1983) ‘Facilitating Effective Performance Appraisals: The
Role of Employee Commitment and Organizational Climate’. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck &
J. Cleveland (ed.) Performance Measurement and Theory. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Sun, J. (2000) ‘Organization development and change in Chinese state-owned
enterprises: a human resource perspective’. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 21(8): 379-389
Tata, J. (2005) ‘The Influence of National Culture on the Perceived Fairness of Grading
Procedures: A Comparison of the United States and China’. Journal of Psychology,
39(5): 401-412.
Thibodeaux, H. F., & Lowe, R. H. (1996) ‘Convergence of Leader-Member Exchange
and Mentoring: An Investigation of Social Influence Patterns’. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 11: 97-114.
Tsang, W.W. (1998) ‘Can guanxi be a source of sustained competitive advantage for
doing business in China?’. Academy of Management Executive, 12(2): 64-73.
Tsui, A.S., & Barry, B. (1986) ‘Interpersonal Affect and Rating Errors’. Academy of
Management Journal, 29(3): 586-99.
Varma, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Peters, L. H. (1996) ‘Interpersonal Affect and Performance
Appraisal: A Field Study’. Personnel Psychology, 49: 341-339.
Varma, A., & Pichler, S. (2007) ‘Interpersonal Affect: Does It Really Bias Performance
Appraisals?’. Journal of Labor Research, 28(2): 397-412
56
Velsor, E. V., Taylor, S., & Leslie, J. B. (1993) ‘An examination of the relationships
among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness’.
Human Resource Management, 32(2-3): 249-263
Vest, M. J, Scott, K. D., & Tarnoff, K. A. (1995) ‘When accuracy is not enough: the
moderating effect of perceived appraisal use’. Journal of Business and Psychology,
10(2): 207-220.
Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley.#p#分頁標題#e#
WAI (Work in America Institute) (1978) Highlights of the literature #4: Managerial
productivity. Scarsdale, N.Y.: Work in America Institute, Inc.
Williams, R. S. (1998) Performance Management: Perspectives on Employee
Performance. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Winstanley, N. B. (1975) ‘The use of performance appraisal in compensation
administration’. Conference Board Record, 12(3): 43-47.
Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1993) ‘Understanding self-perception accuracy:
implications for human resource management’. Human Resource Management, 32(2-3):
231-247
Yaney, J. P. (1988) ‘Motivation and the organization’. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 1: 46-57.
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
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) ‘Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences’. American
Psychologist, 35: 151-175.
57
APPENDIX
Perceived Appraisal Accuracy Questionnaire
We would like to find out how you feel about your company’s present performance
appraisal practices and principles, and in order to do this we would like you to complete
this questionnaire. It is important for you to be completely honest about your feelings.
All responses will be treated in strict confidence and there is no requirement to put your
name to the questionnaire. The responses will be processed in confidence by the
researcher. The data will only be used for academic purpose. It should take about 10
minutes to complete this questionnaire.
We would like you enter your gender, age and tenure and company to assist us with the
interpretation of the results. Thank you for your co-operation.
Gender: __________
Age: __________
Tenure: __________
Company: __________
You need to state your attitudes on the following pages about performance appraisal.
Questions 1 to 33 are single-choice questions, each of them has five choices (A.
Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.). You should
indicate your response by circling your answer for each question.
Questions 34 and 35 are multiple-choice questions. You should circle all the applied
choice.
58
Questions 1 to 33 are single-choice questions. You should indicate your response by
circling your answer for each question.
1. The performance appraisal was consistent with how I felt I performed on the task.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
2. The performance appraisal accurately reflected my true performance on the task.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.#p#分頁標題#e#
3. The performance appraisal accurately described my strengths and weaknesses.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
4. The performance appraisal is accurate.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
5. I am adequately rewarded for my effort.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
6. My level of pay is fair.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
7. My performance is evaluated fairly.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
8. The system of promotion is fair.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
9. To appraise my performance, management collects accurate and complete
information.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
10. Management clarifies why performance have been appraised and provides
additional information when requested by employee.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
59
11. Management makes sure all employee concerns are heard before performance are
appraised.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
12. All performance appraisals are applied consistently across all affected employees in
the same group or workplace.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
13. Management appraises performance in an unbiased manner.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
14. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal performance appraised by
management.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
15. During performance appraisal, management offers explanations that make sense to
me.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
16. Management explains very clearly about the performance appraisal to me.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
17. Management offers adequate justification for appraising my performance.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
18. When decisions are made about my job, management deals with me in truthful
manner.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
19. During performance appraisal, management treats me with kindness and
consideration.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
60
20. During performance appraisal, management treats me with respect and dignity.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
21. My rater tends to see eye-to-eye with me on most important issues.#p#分頁標題#e#
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
22. It appears that my rater would like to get to know me better.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
23. I regard my rater to be a good friend.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
24. If I were to leave this company/job, I think the management would try to get me to
come back.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
25. It appears that my rater would like to spend more time with me.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
26. Performance appraisals help determine whether to promote, retain or terminate an
employee.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
27. Performance appraisals determine what salary or merit someone should receive.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
28. The performance appraisal process documents and recognizes employee
performance.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
29. Performance appraisals determine which employees are not performing well.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
61
30. Performance ratings let employees know where they stand.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
31. Performance ratings are used to provide feedback about employee performance.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
32. Performance appraisals identify individual strengths and weaknesses.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
33. Performance appraisals determine which individuals need training.
A. Strongly disagree; B. Disagree; C. Neutral; D. Agree; E. Strongly Agree.
62
Questions 34 and 35 are multiple-choice questions. You should indicate your
response by circling all the applied choice.
34. What criteria have you perceived to be used in the performance appraisal?
A. Hard criteria
B. Soft criteria
C. Contextual criteria
35.留學生國際管理碩士dissertation What type of raters have you perceived to be used in the performance appraisal?
A. Self
B. Subordinates
C. Peers
D. Direct supervisors
E. Customers/Clients
F. HR professionals