The Effects of Performance Rating, Leader-Member Exchange, Perceived Utility, and

Organizational Justice on Performance Appraisal Satisfaction: Applying a Moral Judgment

Perspective
Author(s): Carrie Dusterhoff, J. Barton Cunningham and James N. MacGregor
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 119, No. 2 (January 2014), pp. 265-273
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42921289
Accessed: 01-07-2018 10:00 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2014) 1 19:265-273
DOI 10.1007/s 1055 1-0 13- 1634-1

The Effects of Performance Rating, Leader-Member Exchange,

Perceived Utility, and Organizational Justice on Performance
Appraisal Satisfaction: Applying a Moral Judgment Perspective
Carrie Dusterhoff • J. Barton Cunningham •
James N. MacGregor

Received: 23 April 201 2 /Accepted: 20 January 2013 /Published online: 1 February 2013
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The performance appraisal process is increas- Introduction

ingly seen as a key link between employee behaviour and

an organization's strategic objectives. Unfortunately, per- Performance appraisals enable employers and employees to
formance reviews often fail to change how people work, define, communicate, and review expectations, goals, and
and dissatisfaction with the appraisal process has been progress in achieving strategic objectives (Bacal 2004). The
associated with general job dissatisfaction, lower organi- purpose is to improve the way employees contribute to an
zational commitment, and increased intentions to quit. organization's goals and job performance. Appraisals are
Recent research has identified a number of factors related also intended to sustain, improve, and help an employee
to reactions to performance appraisals in general anddevelop and to overcome barriers to performance. If done
appraisal satisfaction in particular. Beyond the appraisalwell, performance reviews fulfill an important organiza-
outcome itself, researchers have found that appraisaltional need to provide feedback, guide, and encourage people
reactions are affected by perceptions of fairness and the to develop their skills and focus their performance toward
relationship between the supervisor and the employee. To organizational priorities and objectives (Lawler 1994).
explain the relationships among these factors, the present Unfortunately, many respected researchers and manag-
article proposes a moral cognition perspective. We suggesters have questioned whether performance appraisals or
that employees judge a performance appraisal from thereviews are worth the effort because of difficulties expe-
perspective of its moral justifiability, and that appraisal rienced in conducting them. Resulting conflicts created
reactions will be determined, at least in part, by the per- between supervisors and employees are sometimes long
ceived moral justifiability of the process. The proposal was lasting (Lawler 1994). Employees, the recipients of per-
supported by results from a survey of government formance feedback, are often very dissatisfied with, and
employees using measures of performance ratings, leader-reject, the performance review process and the feedback
member exchange, perceived utility, and organizationalthey receive (Elicker et al. 2006). The reviews often fail to
justice. change how people work, nor do they improve perfor-
mance, motivate, or guide personal development (Keeping
Keywords Performance appraisal satisfaction • Moral and Levy 2000). In a survey of almost 50,000 organiza-
judgment • Leader-member relations • Organizational tional respondents, an international consulting firm found
justice that only 13 % of employees and managers, and 6 % of
CEOs, felt that their performance management systems
were useful (Posthuma and Campion 2008).
There is a growing consensus among researchers and
practitioners that the success with the performance appraisal
process is extremely important in encouraging employee
C. Dusterhoff • J. B. Cunningham (El) • J. N. MacGregor
development and motivation (Kuvaas 2006; Fletcher 2001 ).
School of Public Administration, University of
Victoria, Victoria V8P5E7, British Columbia The performance appraisal process is increasingly seen as a
e-mail: bcunning@uvic.ca key part of the strategic approach to management, in

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 266 C. Dusterhoff et al.

providing
Two formsa tool
of appraisal satisfaction have been distin- to f
employee's competenc
guished; satisfaction with the appraisal session , and satis-
tion's strategic objectiv
faction with the wider appraisal system. A second widely
If
managers expect
used appraisal reaction reported by Crawley et al. (1998) is to
process toperceived utility, originally measured by Greller (1978)
encourage em
mance, employees have
using a four-item scale that assessed the extent to which the
erally be performance appraisal-clarified supervisor expectations
satisfied with
feel the and helped to improve job performance.
process to be un
use the results of the
Giles andOrganizational
MossholderJustice Approach to Appraisal
satisfied Reactions
with the proces
evaluation and see it as
mance andAn important and influential approach to understanding
development
agreementperformance
with appraisal reactions has been provided by the
the per
improved organizational
understandin justice perspective (Elicker et al. 2006;
Thurston to
motivation and McNall 2010). Originally couched in terms
improve
ment (Burke et
of fairness and equity (Adams al.
1963; Greenberg 1986), a 197
isfaction and
number of distinct types
disagreem
of organizational justice have now
process is also
been proposed. related
The first of these, distributive justice, is
lower concerned with the fairness of rewards relative to the work
organizational com
quit (Brown expended, and haset been consistently
al. found to be an
2010
Over the important
last factor in appraisal
few reactions. Subsequently,
year
number of procedural
factorsjustice was recognized as a second thatform of
performance organizational justice. In thisappraisa
case, determinants of fair-
positive ness, beyond the outcomes themselves, are the
feedback in procedures th
one way toused in conducting
improve evaluations (Greenberg 1986). Proce- the
feedback dural justice
is is enhanced through adherence to "due pro-
positive and
expected,cess"they criteria, including lack of bias, areconsistency and mo
review (Blakely
accuracy (Leventhal 1980). In addition, some 1993)
researchers
itself, have considered "voice" - the degree of input an employee
researchers have
affected has into the evaluation
by process to be an aspect of proce-
perception
Others havedural justice (Colquitt 2001;Scandura 1999), while others
identified
between have treated voice
the as a separate factor (Cawley et al. 1998;
supervisor
more Elicker et al. 2006). A third
positive type of organizational justice
leader-me
result in has been identified in the form of interactional
higher employ justice (Bies
the and Moag 1986)
process which, in the context of performanceet
(Elicker
The appraisal, will be article
present enhanced when an employee is treated
tak
on with consideration and
appraisal respect during the appraisal process.
reactions.
judge a In a further elaboration, interactional justice has been
performance ap
moral subdivided into two types; informational justice, focusing
justifiability. App
at least in on part,
issues such as the adequacyby
of explanations,
theand
process. interpersonal justice, stressing issues of politeness, and
respect (Colquitt 2001; Greenberg 1993).
Appraisal Reactions The recognition of different forms of organizational
justice has resulted in considerable debate and research on
Researchers have typically measured appraisal reactions in the dimensionality of the construct (Colquitt 2001; Thur-
terms of appraisal satisfaction, motivation to improve, ston and McNall 2010). Some have argued that conceptual
perceived accuracy, and perceived utility (Elicker et al. confusion exists about the differences between interac-
2006). In their meta-analysis of the effects of participation tional and interpersonal justice and how these constructs
on appraisal reactions, Cawley et al. (1998) reported that should be defined (Roch and Shanock 2006). Greenberg
appraisal satisfaction was the most frequently measured (1993), for example, proposed that both interactional and
reaction, perhaps because it affects important outcome vari- informational justice may be viewed as interpersonal
ables, such as motivation, commitment, and productivity. aspects of distributive and procedural justice, respectively.

â Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Moral Judgment Perspective 267

Others individual'sthat
have argued moral cognitions. Following Kohlberg's
interactional
viewed asa component of
model, Trevino proposed procedural
that individual moral cognitions
1991). Even the are determined by the individual's
distinction stage of moral devel- the
between o
of organizationalopment.
justice
It has been proposedmay be orga-
that, like individuals, quest
and Ambrose (2001),nizations may for example,
be characterized in terms of their level of hav
moral development, and
tributive and procedural Kohlberg's approach
justice may has been not
adapted to
distinct as generally this context also (Logsdonsince
believed, and Yuthas 1997;what
what is a processReidenbach
may and Pobinoften
1991; Sridha and Camburn
be1993). a matt
Because Kohlberg's
Thus, the conceptual debate ideas have influenced
seems organizational
to all
bility of from one
and management
to four thinking on ethical
dimensions
decision making, we o
justice. Empirical begin with a brief outline of
research his theoretical position,
seems to rein
sion, with some results being
drawing primarily from his unable
own summary (Kohlberg and t
tinguish between Hersh 1977).
distributive and proced
other results support
Following Piaget,
the Kohlberg
full
was interested
four-fact
in the cog-
2001). Recently, nitive
Thurston
development of moral reasoningand McNal
in the individual,
evidence from infancy into adulthood.
distinguishing the Hefour concluded that justice
moral
tioned that the high
reasoning correlations
progressed through three levels, each ofamong
which in t
gains in turn consisted
incremental fit of two challenge
stages. Level I was referred to asthe
the pr
of distinguishing "preconventional" level, in which
between them.morality is determined
As of date, research on
in terms of the physicalthe
consequencesdimensiona
of actions. At Stage
tional justice and 1how
, right actions it
are thoserelates to
which avoid punishment. appra
At Stage
be characterized as
2, they
dealing
are those which satisfy with
one's own needs. At
theLevel "ho
how to separate the dimensions
II, referred to as the "conventional" level, right actionsof org
and arrange them with
consist of conforming to the other variable
expectations of the immediate
member exchangesocial quality (LMX),
group and of loyalty towards in
it. Stage 3 morality is a ca
has appraisal reactions as
typified by an orientation the
toward outcome
social approval of sig-
paper to introduce a others
nificant complementary
while at Stage 4, the "law and order ori- "ve
to the relationships
entation" among
becomes more dominant, organization
and right actions rest
nents by suggesting that
on duty, responsibility and some
respect for rules. may
At Level III, be m
than others, and that this
referred to as the may
"postconventional" provide
or principled level,
dence among them. To
moral values do
are defined so,
in terms we
of principles thatapply
have a a
framework to explain
more general application.satisfaction
At Stage 5, there is a legalistic or w
appraisal, as described below.
social-contract orientation which recognizes the relativism
of values and the need for procedural rules for reaching
democratic consensus. At Stage 6, in contrast, moral
Conceptual Framework and
judgment rests on self-chosen, Hypothes
universal, abstract, ethical
principles.
We propose that satisfaction with
Kohlberg believed that the sequence of moral develop- perfo
may depend on ment is fixed,
the degreeunidirectional, and involves
tothe which
hierarchical tho
perceive the process to
integration of be
each preceding stagemorally
into the next. The latter justif
we suggest that many of
characteristic means the
that cognition variables
at a higher stage com- pr
as being associated with
prehends each lower stage appraisal
of thinking, although there is a reactio
nized within a moral
preference to operate at the highest availableframewor
judgment stage,
In organizations, according to Kohlberg. One important modification
perceptions of towhat is
are considered to be a function both of the individual's Kohlberg's theory was proposed by Rest (1986), that
moral perspective and the moral culture of the organiza- people may simultaneously demonstrate more than one
tion. Taking a contingency view, Ferrell and Gresham stage of moral development. While there have been many
(1985) proposed that ethical decision making results from criticisms of Kohlberg's approach (Krebs and Denton
the interplay of individual, organizational, social, and2005; Snarey 1985; Sachdeva et al. 201 1), it continues to
cultural factors. Similarly, Trevino (1986) proposed an be widely influential, informing research into moral
interactive person-situation model, in which the organi- behaviour in many areas, including business and manage-
zational factors of job context, work characteristics, and ment (Greenberg 2002; Monga 2007) and related applied
organizational culture act as situational moderators of thedisciplines (Myyry et al. 2009).

Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 268 C. Dusterhoff et al.

are valued (Kohlberg

Application to and Hersh 1977).Perfor
In the context of
performance appraisal, the relationship with the immediate
We propose here
supervisor is likely to that
be highly significant. If the appraisal
may view the
is conducted in a way than maintains perform
or promotes a loyal
moral judgment lens,
and mutually supportive relationship between the individ-
mance appraisal
ual and supervisor, then it will be more likely may
to be judged b
they as morally acceptable.
judge the Consequently, we hypothesize
process that:
a position similar to
Hypothesis 2 There is a direct relationship between
ments in organizatio
LMX and appraisal satisfaction, independently of the
individual's stage of
effects of the performance rating itself.
factors, including the
also follow Reidenbach
Utility
different components
ferent stages of mora
At Stage 4, maintenance of the social order takes on a more
siderations suggest th
formal aspect, focussed on respect for rules, regulations
and situational factor
and authority. We consider that these concerns are reflected
individuals to a particu
in the utility of a performance appraisal, in terms of how
of stages of moral r
well it assists in the clarification of formal expectations,
available to them.
duties and responsibilities. At this stage, a performance
Next, we consider how a number of the variables that
appraisal that accomplishes this type of clarification will be
have been associated with performance appraisal satisfac-
regarded as more morally justified than one that does not.
tion may map on to different stages of moral development.
Specifically, we consider: (a) the outcome of the appraisalHypothesis 3 There is a direct relationship between
in terms of a summative evaluation, (b) the immediate
perceived utility and appraisal satisfaction, independently
of the effects of both LMX and the performance rating
social context as exemplified by LMX, (c) the utility of the
itself.
appraisal, and (d) the fairness of the process, as reflected by
Organizational Justice.
Justice

Appraisal Evaluation
At Stage 5, moral judgment takes on a legalistic and social-
To the extent that an appraisal's overall evaluation of
contract orientation, emphasising due process and socially
agreed-upon individual rights. Within the context of per-
performance may be interpreted in terms of rewards and
punishments, this variable has the potential to engage
formance appraisal, the construct that most clearly reflects
this type of concern is Organizational Justice. Other things
moral judgments at the most basic level, comprising Stages
1 and 2. That is, a person reacting to the outcome of theirbeing equal, a person operating at this stage will judge an
appraisal from a perspective of rewards and punishmentsappraisal process that respects justice to be more morally
may tend to interpret a favourable outcome as more mor-acceptable than one that does not.
ally justified than an unfavourable one. If the overall
Hypothesis 4 There is a direct relationship between
hypothesis is correct, that satisfaction with performance
perceived justice and appraisal satisfaction, independently
appraisal depends on its perceived moral tightness, we
of the effects of perceived utility, LMX, and the perfor-
therefore hypothesize that:
mance rating itself.
Hypothesis 1 There is a direct relationship between the
favorability of a performance rating and appraisal
Organizational Context
satisfaction.
This study was undertaken to partially provide input into a
LMX new performance management system introduced a Cana-
dian provincial government. The system is connected to an
Within Level H, maintaining immediate social expectationselectronic review form linked to a corporate database. Each
is regarded as valuable in its own right. At Stage 3, theemployee received an overall rating on performance and
basis for moral judgment is the immediate social context, their implementation of organizational values. The form
and good actions are those approved by significant others. also allowed supervisors to offer suggestions for training,
Loyalty and support within the immediate social context development, and career advancement.

Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Moral Judgment Perspective 269

Method Performance Appraisal Satisfaction

Survey Sample "I felt satisfied with the performance review session."
"Overall, I felt the performance review process (including
Seventy-one respondents, out of a total sample of 166 the planning and focusing phases) was valuable." "I have
employees in an organizational unit, responded to our inter- positive expectations of future performance review meet-
net survey, representing a 43 % response rate. The majority ings." "I agreed with my performance review result."
of the participants were female (70 %). The average age of (Alpha = 0.78).
the participants was 42 years, and the average tenure was We also collected information on age, gender, length of
13 years. service, and job position.

Measures
Results
The survey included measures of performance rating,
LMX, utility, justice, and performance appraisal satisfac-The results from survey respondent (N = 71) are summa-
tion. Except where otherwise noted, ratings used a five- rized in Table 1, which presents the means, standard
deviations, and correlations for the various measures.
point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree. (Entries on the main diagonal show alpha values for multi-
item scales.) For all variables, mean ratings were above the
Performance Rating scale midpoints, indicating that respondents were in gen-
eral more positive than not. As can be seen from Table 1,
Respondents were asked to report the rating they received inall of the correlations between variables were positive and
the most recent performance appraisal. Ratings used a five-
significant (p < 0.05), as would be expected from previous
point scale of: 1 = ineffective, 2 = developing, 3 = solid
research. The correlations between the four-independent
performance, 4 = high achievement, 5 = exceptional. variables and appraisal satisfaction variables ranged from
0.52, for performance rating, to 0.78, for organizational
Leader-Member Exchange justice. This set of significant positive correlations is gen-
erally consistent with our hypotheses. A more detailed test
LMX was measured using a seven-item scale (Graen andis described below.
Uhl-Bien 1995). Sample items included: "I know where I
stand with my supervisor". (Alpha = 0.91). Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Utility We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis with

Utility was measured using three items, similar to those
used by Greller (1978). These were: "As a result of the
discussion, I feel that I have a better understanding of what
my supervisor expects of me on the job"; "I have a good
idea of what my supervisor expects in terms of job per-
formance improvements"; "As a result of the final per-
formance review meeting, I feel the mutual understanding
between my supervisor and myself has improved."
(Alpha = 0.81).
Justice
We used seven items reflecting different facets of Orga-
nizational Justice, including "I feel my final review was
fair" (distributive justice), "I believe my supervisor has the
skills required to assess my performance fairly" (proce-
dural justice), and "My supervisor was helpful and con-
structive during the review process" (interactional justice).
(Alpha = 0.91).
appraisal satisfaction as dependent variable and age, gen-
der, length of service, job position, performance rating,
LMX, utility, and justice as independent variables. The
four demographic variables were entered in the first block,
followed by each of the remaining independent variables
separately in the order of priority specified by the moral
judgment framework: that is, performance rating, LMX,
utility, and justice. The main results are shown in Table 2.
Overall, the independent variables accounted for 71 %
of the variance in performance appraisal satisfaction. On
the initial step of the analysis, the four demographic vari-
ables were entered together, and accounted for 7 % of the
variance in appraisal satisfaction. The combined effect of
the demographic variables was not significantly greater
than zero. As a test of Hypothesis 1, performance rating
was entered at the next step, resulting in an increase in the
variance accounted for to 34 %. The increase was signifi-
cant (p < 0.001), and supported the hypothesis that
appraisal satisfaction is a positive function of the perfor-
mance rating awarded. As a test of Hypothesis 2, LMX was

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 270 C. Dusterhoff et al.

Table 1 Means, standard d

Means SD Appraisal sat. Perf. rating LMX Utility Justice

Appraisal satisfaction 3.11 0.76 0.78

Performance rating 3.21 0.74 0.52 na
LMX 3.58 0.80 0.62 0.50 0.91

Utility 3.31 0.80 0.69 0.27 0.72 0.81

Justice 3.56 0.74 0.78 0.49 0.78 0.78 0.91

* All correlations significant at p < 0.01 exce

Table 2 Summary of hierarchical regression

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

B SE B ß B SE B ß B SE B ß B SE B ß B SE B ß

Age, gender, Not sig.

time, position
Performance rating 0.58*** 0.11 0.56 0.30* 0.12 0.29 0.39*** 0.10 0.38 0.28* 0.10 0.27
LMX 0.44*** 0.10 0.47 -0.02 0.12 -0.02 -0.15 0.12 -0.16

Utility 0.58*** 0.11 0.61 0.36** 0.12 0.37

Justice 0.48*** 0.14 0.47
R2 0.07 0.34 0.49 0.65 0.71
F for R2 change 1.26 ns 25.90*** 19.52*** 29.56*** 12.36***
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

now additional
entered next, and increased R2 by an been well-established
15,(Erdogan
to and Liden 2006).
LMX has been reported
49 %. Again, the change in R2 was significant to influence both appraisal satis-
(p < 0.001),
factionsatisfaction
supporting the hypothesis that appraisal and perceived utility,
ismediated
a by voice, and justice
perceptions
positive function of LMX, when the effects of(Elicker
the et al. 2006). Sparr and Sonnentag
perfor-
(2008) reported
mance rating itself are controlled for. Testing that the relationship
Hypothesis 3, between perceived
perceived utility of the appraisal was justice
addedof performance
on the appraisals
next and job satisfaction was
fully mediated
step, and resulted in a further increase in R2 by LMX.
to Similarly,
65 %.Masterson et al. (2000)
Again, the increase was significant ( preported
< 0.001),that LMX mediated the relationship between
supporting
interactional
the hypothesis that appraisal satisfaction isjustice and job satisfaction, while Piccolo
a positive
function of the perceived utility of theet al.appraisal,
(2008) found that LMX moderated the effects of
beyond
the effects of the rating itself and the perceived justice on withdrawal.
relationship with the Erdogan (2002) proposed
a model in which
supervisor. As a test of Hypothesis 4, perceived pre-appraisal
justice was LMX and favorability of
entered on the final step, and increasedperformance
R2 by 6 ratings
%, positively
to 71 affect
%. justice perceptions
The significant increase (p < 0.001)
which supported the
in turn positively affect post-appraisal LMX and
hypothesis that appraisal satisfaction is various performance-related
a direct function outcomes.
of
organizational justice, independently What is less expected,
of the combined perhaps, is that the individual
relationships
effects of the rating itself, the relationship with conformed to a pattern consistent with a
the super-
visor, and the perceived utility of the hierarchical
appraisal. ordering of justice-relevant variables. Based
on Kohlberg' s (1969) theory of moral reasoning, and
informed by applications of the theory to organizations
Discussion (Reidenbach and Pobin 1991; Trevino 1986), we suggested
that a number of variables previously observed to correlate
with appraisal satisfaction might all be aspects of the single
In some respects, the results of this study are unsurprising.
The individual relationships observed here between per- construct of "moral justifiability". We proposed that, other
things being equal, a performance appraisal that is per-
formance appraisal satisfaction and the other factors have
ceived to be morally justified will be perceived as more
all been previously reported, as have interrelationships
among various combinations of the factors. For example,satisfactory than one that is not. From Kohlberg's per-
spective on moral cognitions, the performance rating itself,
the relationship between LMX and justice perceptions has

Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Moral Judgment Perspective 27 1

the relationship consisted a

with of a supervisor,
cross-sectional survey of employees
thesub- per
the appraisal, as sequent toas
well their annual performance appraisal. Although
perceptions of the
outcome and our analysis-specified
procedures of appraisal
thesatisfaction as dependent
appraisal p
be viewed variable and the
relevant other factors as independent
as
factors in variables,
moral j
thermore, they are we cannot
factors rule out other that
possible causalare
patterns. likely
For
reasoning at different
example, perceptionslevels.
of organizational justice
Based and LMX on
ations, we derived may
fourhave been consequences
hypotheses rather than antecedentsabout
of
appraisal satisfaction.
of these factors with appraisal At the same time, our present
satisfaction
were supported by interest
the was not so much in the causal ordering of vari-
results.
The inter-relationships among
ables as in their hierarchical LMX,
ordering. The supposition o
justice, performance
was that ratings,
some variables play a moreand other
basic role than others ou
quently explained in thein terms
perception of
or judgement of what social
is morally justi- ex
fied. Once the effects
(Masterson et al. 2000; Wayneof those more basic et
variablesal.
are 2002
ceived fairness of rewards and of the leader's behavior in taken into account, the question was whether the proposed
higher-order variables have an additional effect, and
allocating them are related to enhanced LMX (McFarlin
and Sweeney 1992; Murphy et al. 2003). The socialhierarchical regression analysis provided a means of
exchange explanation of these and similar relationships isaddressing this. Therefore, our interest was not so much
in whether the "independent" variables caused appraisal
that employees reciprocate the perceived fairness or lack of
satisfaction, as in whether the pattern of relationships
fairness of leader treatment by developing higher or lower
quality exchanges (Erdogan and Liden 2006). among them was consistent with their proposed hierar-
While the present results are consistent with socialchical ordering.
exchange explanations, the interpretation we propose offers A second limitation is that the measures we used had
the additional suggestion that social exchange processes may
similar scale formats. In measuring four of the constructs
be viewed as a component in a more general system of moral
we asked respondents to rate their relationship with their
cognitions. The basic idea, proposed by Kohlberg, is that supervisor, perceived usefulness of the process, feelings
moral cognitions appear in a specific developmental order,of justice, and satisfaction. In a slightly different mea-
sure, we asked respondents to summarize the actual rat-
reflecting growth from an egocentric perspective through
more socio-centric perspectives that may both encompassing they received in the last performance evaluation. In
and transcend social exchange as we conventionally under-
research on performance appraisal reactions, methods bias
stand it. We have suggested here that individuals apply moralspecifically arising from affectivity has been a topic of
cognition to the processes and outcomes of performance interest (Keeping and Levy 2000; Sparr and Sonnentag
2008).
appraisal, and judge them accordingly. To the extent that the Keeping and Levy reported finding a small
moral culture of the organization does not completely con-
methods effect associated with both positive and negative
affectivity, but concluded that the effects did not exert
strain individuals, the resulting moral judgments may vary
both between individuals and within individuals (Rest 1986)
any meaningful bias on appraisal reactions. However,
in terms of the level of moral reasoning that they reflect.
while Keeping and Levy's results offer some comfort, we
acknowledge the possibility of common methods effects
Consequently, the perceived moral rightness of an appraisal,
in these results.
and the resulting satisfaction with it, may be influenced by
factors ranging from ego reward/punishment, reciprocity A third limitation is that our measure of organizational
and social support, to more impersonal and abstract con-justice may have combined different forms of the construct
ceptions of fairness and justice. The present results are by including items reflecting distributive, procedural, and
consistent with this suggestion, indicating that additional
interactional justice. In our defence, there are precedents
variance in appraisal satisfaction can be accounted for byfor using a combined measure of this kind (Elicker et al.
adding variables in order from basic, egocentric moral
2006). In addition, the scale reliability was 0.91 which may
judgments, through socio-centric perspectives, to more
support the Elicker et al. contention, following Lind (2001)
abstract, general considerations. that people often make global justice judgments without
necessarily attending to its separate dimensions. Never-
theless, it may be useful in future research of the present
Limitations and Future Directions type to employ separate justice scales. This would allow
testing of whether different forms of organizational justice
Several limitations should be taken into account in con- may be organized at different levels in a hierarchy of moral
sidering the contributions of this study. The method cognitions.

Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 272 C. Dusterhoff et al.

References Greller, M. M. (1978). The nature of subordinate participation in the

appraisal interview. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4),
646-658.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 , 422-436. Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal
Bacal, R. (2004). Manager's guide to performance reviews (p. 21). reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of
New York: McGraw Hill. Applied Psychology, 85, 708-723.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive develop-
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communi-
cation criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M.
mental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.),
H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480).
(pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Blakely, G. L. (1993). The effects of performance rating discrepan-Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review
of a theory. Theory into Practice, 16, 53-59.
cies on supervisors and subordinates. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 54 , 57-80. Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic
Brown, M., Hyatt, D., & Bension, J. (2010). Consequences of the approach to morality: A critical evaluation of Kohlbergls model.
performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review, 39 , Psychological Review, 112, 629-649.
375-396. Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee
Burke, R. J., Weitzel, & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of work motivation.
employee performance review and development interviews: International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17,
504-522.
Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31 , 903-919.
Lawler, E. E, I. I. I. (1994). Performance management: The next
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in
the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A generation. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26, 16-19.
Leventhal,
meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied
G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In
Psychology, 83 , 616-633.
K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social
exchange : Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New
Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a
York, NY: Plenum.
construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 86 , 386-400.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as
pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg &
Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distrib-
utive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp.
56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford California Press.
perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg & R.
Logsdon, J. M., & Yuthas, K. (1997). Corporate social performance,
Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp.
stakeholder orientation, and organizational moral development.
119-151). Lexington, MA: New Lexington Press.
Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1213-1226.
Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader-
Maier, N. R. F. (1976). The appraisal interview: Three basic
member exchange in the performance appraisal process. Journal
of Management, 32, 531-551.
approaches. [Originally published as: Maier, N. R. F. (1958)
(Ed.). The appraisal interview: Three basic approaches. La Jolla,
Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice
CA: University Associates.]. New York: Wiley.
perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Man-
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000).
agement Review, 12 , 555-578.
Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of
fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of
responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader-
Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27 , 1-17. McFarhn, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and
procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal
Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework
and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,
for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal
35, 626-637.
of Marketing, 49 , 87-96.
Monga, M. (2007). Managers' moral reasoning: evidence from large
Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The
Indian manufacturing organisations. Journal of Business Ethics,
developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and
71, 179-194.
Organizational Psychology, 74 , 473-487.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice
Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions to
and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions
contextual and session components of performance appraisal.
influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 , 371-377.
76, 845-855.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003).
leadership: Development of leader member exchange (LMX)
Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and
theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2),
219-247. exchange relationships. Human Relations , 56, 61-84.
Myyry, L., Siponen, M., Patinila, S., Vartiainen, T., & Vance, A.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of perfor-
(2009). What levels of moral reasoning and values explain
mance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
340-342. adherence to information security rules? An empirical study.
European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 126-139.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and
Piccolo, R. F., Bardes, M., Mayer, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Does
informational categories of organizational justice. In R. Cro-
high quality leader-member exchange accentuate the effects of
panzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in
organizational justice? European Journal of Work and Organi-
human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum. zational Psychology, 17(2), 273-298.
Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2008). Twenty best practices for
Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and
job employee performance reviews. Compensation and Benefits
situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational
Review, 40( 1), 47-55.
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985-1003.

Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Moral Judgment Perspective 273

Reidenbach, R. E., & Sparr,

Pobin,J. L., & Sonnentag,
D. S. P.
(2008). Fairness
(1991). perceptions A
of conc
corporate moral supervisor feedback, LMX,Journal
development. and employee well-beingofat work.Busine
273-284. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1 7,
Rest, M. (1986). Moral development : Advances in research and 198-225.
theory . New York: Praeger. Sridha, B. S., & Camburn, A. (1993). Stages of moral development of
Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 12 , 727-739.
exchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinc- Thurston, P. W., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of
tions. Journal of Management, 32 , 299-322. performance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psy-
Sachdeva, S., Singh, P., & Medin, D. (201 1). Culture and the quest for chology, 25 , 201-228.
universal principles in moral reasoning. International Journal ofTre vino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A
Psychology , 46(3), 161-176. person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management
Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinkling leader-member exchange: An Review, 77, 601-617.
organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly , 10 ,Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002).
25-40. The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of
Snarey, J. (1985). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral devel- organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal
opment: A critical review of Kohlbergian research. Psycholog- of Applied Psychology, 87 , 590-598.
ical Bulletin , 97, 202-232.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 210.57.222.69 on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:00:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms