See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263320194

Employee social cognition and performance evaluation process reactions

Article  in  Personnel Review · May 2014

DOI: 10.1108/PR-01-2011-0011

CITATIONS READS

6 515

3 authors, including:

Amy Klemm Verbos Ashita Goswami

University of Wisconsin - Whitewater Salem State University
33 PUBLICATIONS   327 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Humor in Leadership View project

Leadership Development Practices View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashita Goswami on 23 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Employee social
Employee social cognition and cognition
performance evaluation
process reactions
Janice S. Miller 515
Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Received 21 January 2011
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA Revised 22 October 2011
Amy Klemm Verbos 27 April 2012
29 October 2013
Department of Management, Central Michigan University, Accepted 12 December 2013
Mount Pleasant, Michigan, USA, and
Ashita Goswami
Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University,
Mount Pleasant, Michigan, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The paper uses social cognitive theory to explore reactions to performance evaluation
processes as situated cognitions by examining the relationship between key elements of employees’
schemas about an organizational environment, preparation for evaluation, and these reactions.
The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey of 260 employees of eight organizations in a Midwestern
US city.
Findings – Job resource adequacy, communication adequacy, coworker relationships, and preparation
time are significantly and positively associated with employee reactions to performance evaluation
processes. Preparation time moderates the association between organizational context and employee
reactions.
Research limitations/implications – A social cognitive perspective on performance evaluation
broadens the scope of extant research. This study is limited by cross-sectional design but opens the
door to future experimental and longitudinal research.
Practical implications – Performance evaluation processes are situated in an organizational
context. Organizational interventions to improve perceptions of this key process could focus on better
communication and encouraging preparation, especially if job resources are less adequate.
Originality/value – This research contributes to the performance evaluation literature by applying
social cognitive theory to performance evaluation reactions as situated cognitions, calling attention to
the broader organizational context in which these processes occur.
Keywords Quantitative, Situated cognition, Social cognition, Performance evaluation,
Communication adequacy, Job resource adequacy, Social schema
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Performance evaluation, a social process embedded in an organizational context,
generates situated cognitions including critical employee reactions, “individual-level
attitudinal evaluations of and responses to the performance appraisal process” (Pichler,
2012, p. 710). Employers and employees often regard the performance evaluation
process as a source of dissatisfaction (Antonioni, 1994; Bernardin et al., 1998). Personnel Review
Vol. 43 No. 4, 2014
Low-quality performance appraisal experiences are associated with reduced job pp. 515-535
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
satisfaction, weaker organizational commitment, and increased intentions to leave 0048-3486
(Brown et al., 2010). Thus, employees’ positive reaction to performance evaluation DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2011-0011
PR remains a desirable component of performance management systems (Boswell and
43,4 Boudreau, 2002; Nathan et al., 1991).
The present study addresses a gap in our understanding of employee responses to
performance evaluation processes as situated cognition, the interplay between what
happens in an organizational environment and a cognitive schema (Elsbach et al.,
2005). According to Ferris et al. (2008), examining the complex backdrop to
516 performance evaluation will enable us to better comprehend performance evaluation
challenges. Job resources, organizational communication, and coworker relationships
may facilitate performance of one’s job, suggesting their potential importance as
environmental variables that may affect an employee’s reactions to performance
evaluation. The time spent preparing for a performance evaluation is a proxy for
reflective cognition about the performance evaluation which may also affect these
reactions. This research expands the theoretical underpinnings of performance
evaluation research. To demonstrate the relevance of social cognitive theory, we
expand past insights from other approaches to performance evaluation.

Theory and hypotheses

Prior investigations of employee reactions to performance evaluation processes
approached the issue from an organizational justice lens (cf. Giles et al., 1997; Pichler,
2012). This construct indicates whether individuals perceive equitable distribution of
outcomes, procedural “due process,” and considerate interpersonal treatment. Pichler
(2012) integrates procedural justice with social exchange theory as an explanation for the
interchange between the performance rater and ratee. The political lens is an alternative
perspective on performance evaluation focussing on deliberate rating inaccuracy to
achieve non-performance outcomes such as avoiding confrontation, obtaining resources,
and motivating under-performers (Sims et al., 1987; Tziner et al., 1996).
Affective events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) offers insight to the
performance evaluation process by addressing how job attitudes and behavior result
from emotions experienced in response to important job events. Ferris et al. (2008)
point out that affective events theory is a complement to social cognitive theory.
Meso-level accountability theory (Frink et al., 2008) is likewise relevant in its focus on
the firm level; however, it does not acknowledge the social context in which individuals
are evaluated.
Social cognitive theory underpins situated cognition and dual processing research
(Elsbach et al., 2005; Evans, 2008). Through social schemas, people construct
unconscious cognitive filters to deal with information that may be relevant to a
category of information (Fiske and Taylor, 1991) such as performance evaluations.
Schemas are cognitive phenomena that cannot be directly measured, but are inferred
from employee self-reports. Specifically, the organizational context includes level of
resources available to do a job and the quality of workplace communication. Although
not directly under organizational control, coworker relationships are another potentially
important social context factor. These variables are a logical starting point to a
social cognitive approach to performance evaluation. We draw on dual-process theory
(Evans, 2008) and situated cognition (Elsbach et al., 2005) to consider whether time
spent preparing for performance evaluation (i.e. reflective cognition) moderates the
association between the organizational context and employee reactions to performance
evaluation.
We first consider job resource adequacy as part of an organizational context and its
potential importance to situated cognitions about performance evaluation.
Job resource adequacy Employee social
Employees perform duties with employer-provided resources including tools, supplies, cognition
budget, equipment, and physical work environment. Job resource adequacy is the
degree to which individuals have the means at hand to accomplish work-related goals
(Bacharach and Bamberger, 1995; Rousseau and Aubé, 2010). Often framed in the
negative and called “situational constraints,” job resources have been found to affect
leadership (e.g. Howell et al., 1986), motivation (e.g. Peters and O’Connor, 1980), job 517
performance (Gilboa et al., 2008), and teamwork (Prasad and Akhilesh, 2002). Dobbins
et al. (1993) theorized that inadequate job resources negatively influence employee
perceptions about a performance interview. Employee frustration with performance
evaluation processes may also limit their reliability and validity ( Jawahar, 2005).
The influence of job resources provides information about an organizational
environment that can shape an individual’s schema about it. For example, consider
a manager situated in a noisy office with outdated technology, no professional
development budget, and tight deadlines. Such inadequate job resources are beyond an
employees’ control, may curtail accomplishment of work goals, limit achievement
(Adkins and Naumann, 2001), make employees feel frustrated and powerless, and lead
to a negative organizational schema. Being held accountable for job performance here
may be associated with negative reactions to performance evaluation processes.
In contrast, someone may perform the same job in a quiet office with modern technology,
generous budget, and adequate time to complete projects. Here, the organization
facilitates successful job performance and a favorable schema which may be associated
with positive reactions to performance evaluation processes. The workplace schema acts
as a filter through which an individual interprets information about performance
evaluation processes (cf. Hodgkinson, 2003).
When people perceive resource surpluses, they are more likely to experience
positive well-being and feel sheltered against threats to status and self-esteem.
A resource-rich environment helps individuals cope with stress and may predispose
them toward more positive reactions to performance evaluation processes. This forms
the basis for our first hypothesis:

H1. Job resource adequacy is positively associated with favorable employee reactions
to performance evaluation processes.

Organizations are human systems, and an organization that fosters communication

adequacy (Day et al., 1998) may contribute to an employee’s positive schema about it.

Organizational communication adequacy

Communication adequacy is a characteristic of the organization’s psychological climate
(Senatra, 1980) and includes timely information flow both up and down a hierarchy and
well-understood communication channels. Voice, a component of an organization’s
climate, is the practice of allowing individuals who have a stake in a decision to
present information relevant to it (Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995). Voice refers to an
individual’s opportunity for participation in the process, while communication adequacy
serves as an umbrella term characterizing a firm’s communication quality. Consequently,
voice is likely to flourish in a workplace that incorporates exemplary communication
processes.
An organization that encourages open communication may feature elements
such as newsletters, social media, discussion boards, and town hall meetings. Such a
PR workplace fosters commitment through communication and helps to buffer individuals
43,4 against job stressors (Laabs, 1998; Sutton and Kahn, 1987). In contrast, inadequate
communication leads to role stress, role conflict and ambiguity, and poor quality
relationships among supervisors and employees (Day et al., 1998; Farr-Wharton and
Brunetto, 2007; Senatra, 1980). Communication adequacy contributes to employees’
social cognitions and to an overarching organizational schema. As such, communication
518 adequacy may contribute to employee reactions to performance evaluation processes.
When organizational communication is high quality, an employee should better
understand performance evaluation processes. Communication adequacy may be part
of the social cognitions that are positively associated with reactions to evaluation
processes, just as it has been observed to be critical in bringing about the desirable
organizational outcomes. Thus, we offer the following hypothesis:

H2. Workplace communication adequacy is positively associated with favorable

employee reactions to performance evaluation processes.

We next consider coworker relationships as integral to an employee’s schema about an

organization’s environment, though not under its direct control.

Coworker relationships
A great deal of performance evaluation research focusses on the supervisor-subordinate
relationship. Respectful interpersonal treatment is a key relational component of the
evaluation process (Findley et al., 2000). Although this research is informative, there
is growing recognition of the importance of positive workplace relationships more
generally (e.g. Dutton and Ragins, 2007). A climate for positive coworker relationships
is potentially a powerful facet of the social cognitions about an organizational
environment.
Positive relationships with coworkers may generate positive social capital (Baker
and Dutton, 2007) and reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Relationships that foster social
support facilitate access to resources (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998), greater power and
influence (Brass and Burkhardt, 1993), greater input into decision making and problem
solving (Alper et al., 1998), and buffer against job stress and burnout (Cohen and Willis,
1985; Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). Positive relationships are beneficial not only in
stressful situations, but magnify positive affect when things go well (Gable et al., 2004).
Bettenhausen and Fedor (1997) demonstrated that positive coworker relationship
quality affected favorable reactions to peer and upward appraisal. However, their study
did not directly assess reactions to the performance evaluation processes as a whole.
Consequently, we offer the following hypothesis:

H3. Coworker relationship quality is positively associated with favorable employee

reactions to performance evaluation processes.

Reactions to performance evaluation processes may be influenced by an employee’s

cognitive preparation. We examine time spent preparing for a performance evaluation
interview as a reasonable proxy for cognitive processing.

Time preparing for performance evaluations

Dual processing theory states that individuals make judgments using rapid autonomous
sets of cognitive processes (Type 1 processes) yielding default responses to stimuli unless
distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2 processes) intervene (Evans Employee social
and Stanovich, 2013). Individuals engage in reflective Type 2 processing when they cognition
are sufficiently motivated or topics are of high personal relevance (Evans, 2008; Evans
and Stanovich, 2013). Compelling evidence supporting this theory comes from
experimental manipulations, neural imaging, and correlations of Type 2 processing
with cognitive ability (Evans and Stanovich, 2013). This underlying reasoning suggests
that an employee who has a negative organizational schema would have an intuitive 519
Type 1 negative reaction to performance evaluation processes. Likewise, if an employee’s
organizational schema is positive, the Type 1 processing would be positive. Here,
preparation for a performance evaluation represents Type 2 reflective cognitive
processing, while no preparation represents Type 1 intuitive processing.
Employees choose whether to spend time preparing for a performance evaluation.
Past research has found that when employees actively participate in feedback
interviews, they are significantly more constructive and satisfying to both parties
(Meyer, 1991). An employee may organize thoughts, review accomplishments, reflect
on past job performance, or develop goals. A person who engages in such preparation
may participate more in a feedback session. Whether such employees view
performance evaluation processes in a more positive light has not been examined.
Evidence drawn from prior research suggests this construct is associated with positive
attitudes toward evaluation processes (Van Fleet et al., 2000). The following hypothesis
tests this assumption:

H4. Preparation time for an evaluation interview is positively associated with

favorable employee reactions to performance evaluation processes.

As situated cognitions, we anticipate interplay between the organizational context and

reactions to performance evaluation processes.

Preparation as a moderator
Elsbach et al. (2005) consider situated cognition an interaction of cognition and its
context. Under dual processing theory (Evans, 2008; Evans and Stanovich, 2013), we
posit that preparation may interact with contextual elements of a workplace schema
to influence reactions to performance evaluation processes. Individual employees
cannot control either job resource adequacy or communication adequacy within
an organization, but can choose to prepare for a performance evaluation. Deliberative
Type 2 processing (i.e. preparation time) requires greater cognitive resources, while
Type 1 processing (i.e. no or little preparation) is automatic.
Social cognitive theory suggests that an employee’s social schema will become more
positive as job resource adequacy improves. Under no preparation time, an employee
should have less favorable reactions to performance evaluation processes, more
favorable reactions in a moderate job resource context, and the most favorable
reactions in a high job resource context. We expect employee preparation to interact
with job resource adequacy such that high preparation time in lower resource
environments should produce more favorable reactions to performance evaluation
processes than moderate preparation time, which in turn will be more favorable than
no preparation time. In austere times, an employee might use preparation time to make
a case for why his or her performance should be evaluated more positively for “doing
more with less.” Therefore, when preparation is high in a lower job resource context,
we expect more favorable reactions to performance evaluation processes, consistent
PR with our prediction for the direct relationship in H4, but moderating the direct
43,4 relationship posited in H1. The following hypothesis examines this:

H5. Preparation time moderates the relationship between job resource adequacy
and employee reactions to performance evaluation processes. Under conditions
of high preparation, the relationship between job resource adequacy and
520 employee reactions to performance evaluation is weaker than under conditions
of moderate preparation or no preparation.

Preparation time also is expected to moderate the relationship between communication

adequacy and reactions to performance evaluation processes. Preparation time should
magnify the hypothesized positive association between communication adequacy and
employee reactions to performance evaluation processes, consistent with the direction
of H2 and H4, but increasing at higher levels of preparation time. High preparation
time should provide the greatest enhancement as communication adequacy increases,
because an employee can respond to issues that arise before the performance
evaluation and be more confident in engaging in the performance interview
(cf. Gruman and Saks, 2011). Moderate preparation should provide a smaller
enhancement than high preparation, but greater than no preparation. This effect
should increase with greater communication adequacy because preparation increases
an employee’s ability to respond to issues that have arisen prior to the performance
evaluation itself. This leads to our final hypothesis:

H6. Preparation time moderates the relationship between communication adequacy

and employee reactions to performance evaluation processes. Under conditions
of high preparation time, the positive relationship between communication
adequacy and employee reactions to performance evaluation is more positive
than under conditions of moderate preparation, which in turn is more
positive than no preparation time.

Figure 1 depicts the hypothesized relationships.

Method
Participants
The data were collected in a survey of 313 employees from eight organizations in the
Midwestern USA. Participant demographics are set forth in Table I. All organizations
are service providers in different industries and sectors. The second author contacted

Performance Evaluation
Process Reactions

H4

H5 H6
Preparation Time
H1 H3
H2
Figure 1.
Hypothesized Job Resource Communication Coworker
Adequacy Adequacy Relationship
relationships
Quality
Gender
Employee social
Women 66% cognition
Men 33%
No answer 1%
Age
o21 years old 2%
21-29 25.3%
30-39 36.9%
521
40-49 21.2%
450 years old 13.5%
No answer 1.2%
Exempt status
Exempt 43.8%
Non-exempt 53.5%
No answer 2.7%
Education
High School 12.7%
Associates Degree 33.5%
Bachelors Degree 41.5%
Graduate Degree 11.2%
Tenure
o3 years 38%
4-5 years 20%
6 or more years 40% Table I.
No answer 2% Demographics

seven organizations through a university-community outreach collaboration and

the eighth through a SHRM contact; all participated in return for a report on employee
satisfaction with appraisal processes and recommendations for improvement.
Employees were told that the survey would research the organization’s performance
appraisal practices, that anonymous data would be aggregated for analysis, and that
the organization would receive a summary report. No employee refused to complete a
survey (although missing data reduced the sample for analysis to 260), and others may
not have been present the day data were collected on-site on company time. It is a non-
random sample of the employees of the eight organizations, limiting generalizability
to other populations.
The survey contained questions about work, performance evaluations, the
organization’s work environment, future career, and demographics. Some data went
into organization reports and some were analyzed for this paper. Employees completed
the survey by marking responses on answer sheets (i.e. the type used in multiple
choice testing). Responses were compiled by machine into an Excel file.

Measures
We chose existing measures for this study that used five-point Likert-type scales,
except as noted below. As recommended by Cohen et al. (2003) we centered the
independent variables job resource adequacy, communication adequacy, and coworker
relationships by subtracting the mean from each value. Items for the variables of
interest in this study are listed in Appendix.
Reactions to performance evaluation processes. The scale measuring employee
reactions to performance evaluation processes contains nine items similar to those
used by Dobbins et al. (1990) and Giles and Mossholder (1990).
PR Job resource adequacy. Seven items identified by Peters and O’Connor (1980) as
43,4 situational constraints scale measure job resource adequacy.
Coworker relations. Six items from Bettenhausen and Fedor (1997) measure the
quality of participants’ relations with their coworkers.
Communication adequacy. Four items developed by Day et al. (1998) measure
workplace communication adequacy.
522 Preparation time. The time an employee spends preparing for a feedback interview
is an objective measure of cognitive resources devoted to that portion of the evaluation
process. Less time indicates Type 1 cognitions and more time indicates more reflective
thought. Since cognition cannot be measured directly and we are concerned with the
amount rather than the content of this preparation, employees indicated how much
time they spent preparing for their most recent performance evaluation. Response
categories (coded 0 through 4) were offered in 15-minute increments ranging from no
time to over an hour.

Control variables
Organization. Performance evaluation systems vary across the participating
organizations. Each has its own evaluation format, ratings, purpose, and frequency.
In order to account for any organization-specific variance in performance evaluation
reactions, we use a dummy code control for each organization. An analysis of variance
disclosed no significant differences across organizations with regard to the dependent
variable (F ¼ 1.317, ns).
Total performance evaluations. We control for the number of performance
evaluation events an individual has experienced with the current employer.
Motivating potential score. Consistent research evidence indicates that
characteristics of highly motivating jobs are associated with performance (Fried and
Ferris, 1987) and overall satisfaction (Ambrose and Kulik, 1999). In the event that such
overall satisfaction is related to and/or influences satisfaction with appraisal processes,
we controlled for this construct in the analysis. Based on Hackman and Oldham’s
(1980) research, we entered each participant’s self-reported motivating potential
score (MPS ¼ (Skill Variety þ Task Identity þ Task Significance)/3  Autonomy 
Feedback) as an additional control. One item assessed each job characteristic.
For example, task identity was assessed with responses to the following question:
“To what extent does your work involve doing a whole and identifiable piece
of work?”
We considered other control variables such as years with the organization, whether
a respondent participated in peer or upward evaluation, type of organization
(non-profit or business), gender, age, and education level. However, these considerations
were not significantly correlated to the variables of interest in this study.

Results
We performed confirmatory factor analysis to examine construct validity and test for
common method variance. We used a partial disaggregation approach for each variable
with more than five indicators, creating item parcels using the item-to-construct
balance approach (Williams and O’Boyle, 2008). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated
that one item in communication adequacy cross-loaded on coworker relations.
We noted that it dealt with coworkers rather than organizational communication.
In order to keep the constructs distinct, we eliminated the item before proceeding (see
Appendix). To test for model fit, we relied on a chi-square test of the null hypothesis
and two indices recommended by Williams et al. (2002), CFI (values of 0.95 and above) Employee social
and RMSEA (values below 0.05 represent very good fit and 0.08 represent good fit). cognition
In our sample the CFI was 0.998 and the RMSEA was 0.018. Estimates of factor loadings
are set forth in Table II.
Scale reliabilities (where applicable) are shown on the diagonal in Table III.
Cronbach’s a’s were very good: evaluation reactions (0.90), job resource adequacy (0.82),
co-worker relationship quality (0.85), and communication adequacy (0.88). Pearson 523
product-moment correlations in Table III provide initial support for the hypotheses.
Each independent variable is positively and significantly correlated with performance
evaluation reactions ( job resource adequacy at r ¼ 0.45, coworker relations at r ¼ 0.35,
communication adequacy at r ¼ 0.34, po0.001, and preparation time at r ¼ 0.23,
po0.001).
We tested a null model of performance evaluation reactions for the possibility of
employing hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in our analysis. It was not significant
(w2(6) ¼ 6.67, p ¼ 0.352), meaning that the between organization variance is not
a significant portion of the total variance. The intraclass correlation showed that o1
percent of the total variance in the unconditioned model could be attributed to between
organization differences. Thus, HLM is not warranted (Hox, 2010).
We analyzed the data using hierarchical regression in SPSS because the data
has inadequate statistical power to use structural equation modeling. Hierarchical
regression is an appropriate method to test both direct and interaction hypotheses in a

Estimate

PEparcel1’Performance_Evaluation Process Reactions 0.905

PEparcel2’Performance_Evaluation Process Reactions 0.891
PEparcel3’Performance_Evaluation Process Reactions 0.770
RESparcel1’Job Resource Adequacy 0.776
RESparcel2’Job Resource Adequacy 0.832
RESparcel3’Job Resource Adequacy 0.805
RELparcel1’Coworker_Relationship Quality 0.882
RELparcel2’Coworker_Relationship Quality 0.864
RELparcel3’Coworker_Relationship Quality 0.759
comm1’Communication_Adequacy 0.805 Table II.
comm2’Communication_Adequacy 0.934 Confirmatory factor
comm3’Communication_Adequacy 0.812 analysis loadings

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Performance evaluation reaction 3.47 0.96 (0.90)

2. Job resource adequacy 3.43 0.82 0.43*** (0.82)
3. Coworker relationship quality 3.65 0.82 0.35*** 0.40*** (0.85)
4. Communication adequacy 2.98 0.91 0.34*** 0.51*** 0.41*** (0.88)
5. Preparation timea 1.44 1.45 0.23*** 0.05 0.050 0.14*
6. MPSb 50.51 29.49 0.30*** 0.23*** 0.20** 0.12 0.12
7. Total evaluations a
2.9 1.38 0.18** 0.17** 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.08 Table III.
Means, standard
Notes: n ¼ 260. Coefficient alphas are reported, where appropriate, in the parentheses on diagonals. deviations, and
a
Ordinal variable (one item); bCalculated by formula (not a scale). * po0.05; ** po0.01; *** po0.001 correlations
PR sample of this size. We recoded preparation time with zero reflecting no preparation
43,4 time, a meaningful coefficient (Cohen et al., 2003). The regression results appear in
Table IV. In each regression, we first entered control variables: MPS, total number of
performance evaluations experienced at the organization, and dummy variables
representing organizations 1 through 7. In Step 1, we entered job resource adequacy,
communication adequacy, and coworker relationship quality to test the direct
524 associations with reactions to performance evaluation processes. The change in R2 is
significant (DR2 ¼ 0.17, DF ¼ 20.63, po0.001). We entered preparation time in Step 2
to test its direct relationship to performance evaluation reactions. The change in R2
is significant (DR2 ¼ 0.02, DF ¼ 7.11, po0.01). Then, in Step 3, we entered interaction
variables for job resource adequacy by preparation time, and communication adequacy
by preparation time to test the moderation hypotheses. Once again the change in R2 is
significant (DR ¼ 0.05, DF ¼ 10.45, po0.001). We report the variance inflation factors
for Step 3 in Table IV to confirm that multicollinearity is not an issue in this analysis
(Cohen et al., 2003). Finally, we tested a three-way interaction and ruled it out, there
is no significant change in R2 (DR2 ¼ 0.01, DF ¼ 0.01, ns).

Dependent variable
Variables entered Evaluation process reaction

Controls VIF
MPS 0.29*** 0.19*** 0.18** 0.17** 1.19
Total no. evaluations 0.17** 0.13** 0.12* 0.11 1.29
Organization 1 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.07 1.68
Organization 2 0.12 0.21** 0.21** 0.19* 2.41
Organization 3 0.12 0.11* 0.11 0.14* 1.30
Organization 4 0.08 0.13* 0.12 0.14* 1.76
Organization 5 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.05 1.20
Organization 6 0.03 0.43 0.06 0.08 1.36
Organization 7 0.02 0.17 0.04 0.01 1.17
R2 0.15
F 4.72***
Step 1 Organization
Job resource adequacyb 0.24*** 0.24*** 0.45*** 2.74
Communication adequacyb 0.17* 0.14* 0.11** 2.94
Coworker relationship qualityb 0.16** 0.16** 0.17** 1.28
DR2 0.17
DF 20.63***
Step 2 Cognition
Preparation time 0.15** 0.13* 1.16
DR2 0.02
DF 7.11**
Step 3 Interactions
Job resource adq. Prep. time 0.30*** 2.57
Comm. adequacy  Prep. time 0.36*** 2.91
DR2 0.05
DF 10.45***
R2 of model 0.15 0.32 0.34 0.39
Table IV.
a b
Results of hierarchical Notes: n ¼ 260. Standardized regression coefficients; Variables centered prior to regression as
regression analysisa recommended by Cohen et al. (2003). * po0.05; ** po0.01; *** po0.001
Regression results support the first three hypotheses. Job resource adequacy, Employee social
communication adequacy, and high-quality coworker relationships are significantly cognition
associated with performance evaluation process reactions (b ¼ 0.24, po0.001, b ¼ 0.17,
po0.05, and b ¼ 0.18, po0.01, respectively). H4 is also supported, employee time
preparing for a performance evaluation is positively associated with evaluation reactions
(b ¼ 0.15, po0.01).
H5 predicts that preparation time moderates the relationship between job resource 525
adequacy and reactions to performance evaluation processes by weakening the
positive relationship, especially when job resource adequacy is lower. Consistent
with H5, when the interaction terms are entered in Step 3, the main effects for job
resource adequacy and preparation time remain significant (b ¼ 0.45, po0.001 and
b ¼ 0.13, po0.05, respectively), and interaction effects of job resource adequacy and
preparation time are significant and negative (b ¼ 0.30, po0.001). In order to
interpret the interaction, we followed the procedure set forth in Cohen et al. (2003)and
plotted the three regression lines of centered job resource adequacy on employee
reactions to performance evaluation processes at three values of preparation time, at
its mean and one standard deviation above and below the mean. Lines with different
slopes provide evidence of an interaction. Figure 2 shows this plot. H5 is partially
supported. Preparation time moderates job resource adequacy, but the explanation is
more complex than hypothesized. Under high preparation, when job resource
adequacy is lowest, reactions to performance evaluation processes are slightly higher
than at average preparation and no preparation. However, as job resource adequacy
increases, high preparation has a lesser slope than medium preparation which has, in
turn, a lesser slope than no preparation. Thus, no preparation in a high resource
environment produces the most favorable reactions to performance evaluation
processes.
Finally, H6 predicts that preparation time moderates the relationship between
communication adequacy and reactions to performance evaluation by magnifying
the positive association with communication adequacy. H6 is supported. When the
interaction terms are entered in Step 3, the main effect for communication adequacy
remains significant, the sign changes from positive to negative (b ¼ 0.11, po0.01),
and the interaction is significant (b ¼ 0.36, po0.001). In order to interpret the

3
Reactions to Per. Eval. Processes

Figure 2.
0 Simple regression lines:
1 2 3 4 5 job resource adequacy
Job Resource Adequacy with preparation
time moderator
High Prep Med Prep No Prep
PR interaction, we plotted the three regression lines of centered job resource adequacy on
43,4 employee reactions to performance evaluation processes at three values of
preparation time, at its mean and one standard deviation above and below the
mean (Cohen et al., 2003). This plot appears in Figure 3. Consistent with H6, under
no preparation, average preparation, and high preparation time, communication
adequacy has a progressively steeper slope, indicating more favorable employee
526 reactions to performance evaluation processes. In other words, preparation time
moderates the association between communication adequacy and employee reactions
to performance evaluation processes such that greater preparation in a high
communication environment produces the most positive employee reactions to
performance evaluation processes.
The hypotheses and results are summarized in Table V. We next discuss the
implications of this study for research and practice.

Discussion
This research explores employee reactions to performance evaluation processes as
situated cognitions. Our approach holds promise for interventions to improve employee
satisfaction with performance evaluation processes. This study provides initial
support for the notion that job resources, organizational communication, and coworker
relationships in organizations are positively associated with situated cognitions about
performance evaluation processes. The time an employee spends preparing for a
performance evaluation interview also emerges as an interesting subject for future
research, as we found both direct associations and interactions with the organizational
context. Using a social cognitive approach in future research may help illuminate
factors that surround and influence reactions to performance evaluation processes
(Bamberger, 2008).
For example, we found support for the role job resources may play in overall
reactions to performance evaluation processes alone and as it interacts with preparation
time (H1 and H5). Specifically, abundant job resources may help employees see an
organization’s performance evaluation processes in a positive light. Inadequate job
resources may be the most cognitively relevant to an employee when a performance

5
Reactions to Perf. Eval.

4
Processes

Figure 3. 0
Simple regression lines: 1 2 3 4 5
communication adequacy Communication Adequacy
with preparation
time moderator
High Prep Med Prep No Prep
 Supported or
Employee social
Hypothesis not supported cognition
1. Job resource adequacy is positively associated with favorable employee reactions Supported
to performance evaluation processes
2. Workplace communication adequacy is positively associated with favorable Supported
employee reactions to performance evaluation processes
3. Coworker relationship quality is positively associated with favorable employee Supported
527
reactions to performance evaluation processes
4. Preparation time for an evaluation interview is positively associated with Supported
favorable employee reactions to performance evaluation processes
5. Preparation time moderates the relationship between job resource adequacy and Partially
employee reactions to performance evaluation processes. Under conditions of high supported
preparation, the relationship between job resource adequacy and employee
reactions to performance evaluation is weaker than under conditions of moderate
preparation or no preparation
6. Preparation time moderates the relationship between communication adequacy Supported
and employee reactions to performance evaluation processes. Under conditions of
high preparation time, the positive relationship between communication adequacy
and employee reactions to performance evaluation is more positive than under
conditions of moderate preparation, which in turn is more positive than no Table V.
preparation time Summary of results

evaluation occurs. As organizations downsize and restructure, merge, or prosper and

expand, perceptions of job resource adequacy may change. The findings also call to mind
research on perceptions of fairness in organizations (e.g. Bernardin and Beatty, 1984;
Dipboye and de Pontbriand, 1981). Holding individuals accountable for performance
when they do not control adequate job resources to enable them to do well may exert a
strong negative influence on their views about performance evaluation processes.
This suggests that managers may wish to consider the role a lack of resources plays
in detracting from performance. An employee’s time preparing for a performance
evaluation interacts with job resource adequacy, moderating its association with
reactions to performance evaluation processes such that high preparation results in
the most positive reactions in low job resource environments, while no preparation
results in the most positive reactions in high job resource environments. Thus, it
might be promising to design and test organizational interventions in resource-poor
organizations that center on ways to instruct and facilitate employee preparation for
performance interviews.
Organizations experiencing low job resources may mitigate associated negative
situated cognitions about performance evaluation processes by encouraging employees
to invest time to prepare for evaluations. This moderating effect follows from
what might be expected under dual process theories (Evans, 2008), as low preparation
time, indicating Type 1 autonomous processing, is consistent in expected directions.
The interaction finding that employee reactions were most positive in a high job resource
environment with no preparation also merits further investigation as to why employees
prepare for performance evaluations in higher resource environments.
Results for communication adequacy, the focus of H2 and H6, point toward
organizational communication adequacy as a potentially important facet of an employee’s
social schema that is also associated with more positive reactions to performance
evaluation processes. Our findings extend communication theory, which places
PR importance on discursive resources available to employer and employee (Gordon and
43,4 Stewart, 2009) from a focus on the interview to the organizational communication
context in which it is situated.
According to the present evidence, an evaluation process is viewed more positively
when it occurs in an open-communication atmosphere. Tactics to enhance communication
could include introducing employee social media, newsletters, electronic bulletin boards,
528 employee suggestion programs, and town hall-type meetings to promote free exchange of
ideas between management and employees. Systematic surveying, informal feedback
seeking, and encouraging upward communication may further promote a supportive
communication climate. Organizations may further address environmental influences by
ensuring that the performance evaluation process receives HRM department support
through providing employees with training, as well as opportunity and time to prepare for
their performance evaluations.
Better coworker relationships may also contribute to employees’ positive social
schema about an organization and are positively associated with cognitions about
performance evaluation processes. An employee’s social schema may influence the
practice of performance management, and one that may not have received the
recognition it deserves. The past few decades’ interest in cognitive processes in
performance appraisal research (Feldman, 1981; Landy and Farr, 1980) has provided
the groundwork for further exploration into social cognition’s role in shaping employee
perceptions about these important processes and potentially toward other ways
cognition interacts with organizational context to produce reactions to organizational
functions.
Another important finding may encourage greater focus on employee preparation
for performance interviews. We found initial support for the idea that more reflective and
systematic as opposed to autonomous, default cognitions about performance evaluation
could not only help us to better understand positive reactions to performance evaluation
processes as situated cognitions, but also the interaction between organizational context
and taking time to prepare for a performance interview. Employees who spent more
time preparing for performance evaluation interviews had more favorable reactions
to performance evaluation processes, except when job resources are abundant.
Interventions aimed at greater communications about preparing for performance
evaluation interviews could be beneficial across organizations. As has been proposed in
other situated cognition frameworks (Elsbach et al., 2005), context and cognitions
interact (H5 and H6 ). Time preparing for a performance evaluation as a proxy for
cognitions might be replaced in field or laboratory experiments by observations, brain
imaging, or diary methods. We also see potential in designing and comparing different
approaches to employee preparation.
Moderation results for preparation time may be interesting to researchers and
managers alike. The moderating effects of preparation time magnified a positive
association in higher communication contexts, and produced more favorable reactions
when job resource adequacy was low. Managers may find that enhancing internal
communication produces more positive situated cognitions about performance
evaluation processes, an implication for future field research.
More abundant job resources, communication adequacy, and coworker relationships
were significant correlates of reactions to performance evaluation processes.
Interventions to improve these facets of an organizational context may create more
positive social schemas about an organization that will encompass positive reactions
to performance evaluation processes. Certainly more research is needed, but positive
cognitions about an organizational context might influence employee reactions to Employee social
performance evaluation and other HRM processes. We also encourage managers to cognition
think carefully about job design, the components of enriched work and the
organizational environment as a whole. Using the motivating potential score (Hackman
and Oldham, 1976) as a control in all our regression models, the data clearly imply that
job design is worthy of further exploration as another potential source for organizational
interventions to improve employee satisfaction with performance evaluation processes. 529
Ultimately, this social cognitive lens approach could increase appreciation for system
perspectives in performance evaluation (Carson et al., 1991). The present research results
deliver a strong message to organizations and human resource professionals to consider
job resource adequacy and communication adequacy, together with encouraging
preparation for a performance evaluation interview, in order to generate more positive
feelings about performance evaluation processes. In addition, this study adds support for
the growing awareness of the benefits of positive relationships with coworkers, a factor
that can be encouraged through organizational values and culture. This approach should
contribute to creating more supportive organizational environments.
Beyond realizing that workplace resources, communication, and relationships are
relevant, it may be useful to develop methods to assess and monitor these components
of today’s work environments. Murphy and Cleveland (1995) reviewed a series of
methods for accomplishing this, categorizing techniques into idiographic and nomothetic
approaches. In essence, these practices involve analyzing workplace features and
determining the kinds of skills necessary to reach performance goals within them. This
is an example of a contextual approach that could lead to finding a fit between an
evaluation system and work performance that an organization facilitates or constrains,
and work performance that is wholly within an individual’s control. Finally, in times
of economic austerity when resources are continually shrinking, managers must be
mindful of the human element in organizations. How individuals are held accountable
for performance should be considered in light of what they have to work with,
communication adequacy and coworker relations in the workplace. If satisfaction with
performance evaluation processes improves, we may anticipate that performance itself
will benefit as individuals heed and modify their behaviors based on appraisal feedback.

Limitations and future research

A limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which does not allow direct
examination of causal relationships. Longitudinal research in appropriate field settings
or an intervention with a pretest and posttest design could address this issue. The
method of data collection was a paper and pencil retrospective survey, which is
susceptible to misinterpretation and social desirability problems. However, assurance
of anonymity, as occurred here, can reduce such bias (Konrad and Linnehan, 1995).
Because survey responses are not matched to independent data sources, they may be
subject to concern regarding common method bias. However, the constructs of interest
are employee perceptions about an organizational context and its performance evaluation
processes, self-reports are appropriate (Conway and Lance, 2010). We performed a
Harman one-factor test (Harman, 1976), a post hoc statistical analysis that indicates
a common method effect if one factor emerges. Here, five factors emerged. After varimax
rotation, each item loaded strongly on the appropriate construct.
Performance evaluation interviews are a form of organizational communication that
could influence an employee’s perceived communication adequacy overall. We did not
control for level or favorability of previous performance evaluations, which may have
PR influenced how respondents reacted to performance evaluation processes. We did
43,4 not explore why employees did or did not prepare for a performance evaluation.
Two potential explanations are that conscientious employees prepare for performance
evaluation or that preparation is a work demand. Since these constructs were not part
of this research, this could be a fruitful area for future inquiry. Finally, we acknowledge
that replicating the study with new measures as they become available, using a
530 random sample of workers across organizations, will bolster generalizability.
We believe that a situated cognition perspective could interest researchers studying
the conservation of resources model (Hobfoll, 1989). Employees who are successful in
gathering resources may hold different perceptions of job resource adequacy and have
a more positive predisposition toward performance evaluation processes. Researchers
following Gruman and Saks (2011) framework for employee engagement as a new
direction for performance management may be interested in determining the relationships
between these contextual variables, performance management systems more broadly, and
employee engagement.
Additional research in organizations will be an invaluable tool in the effort to
understand how to improve performance evaluation processes using a social cognitive
perspective; however, well-designed laboratory studies could be useful as well.
Whatever approach researchers use, further work that helps firms harness the power
of this motivational and developmental HRM tool and better understand its social
context will be welcome.
References
Adkins, C.L. and Naumann, S.E. (2001), “Situational constraints on the achievement –
performance relationship: a service sector study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 453-465.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K.S. (1998), “Interdependence and controversy in group decision
making: antecedents to effective self-managing teams”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 33-52.
Ambrose, M.L. and Kulik, C.T. (1999), “Old friends, new faces: motivation research in the 1990s”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 231-292.
Antonioni, D. (1994), “Improve the performance management process before discontinuing
performance appraisals”, Compensation & Benefits Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 29-37.
Bacharach, S.B. and Bamberger, P. (1995), “Beyond situational constraints – job resources
inadequacy and individual-performance at work”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 79-102.
Baker, W. and Dutton, J.E. (2007), “Enabling positive social capital in organizations”, in Dutton,
J.E. and Ragins, B.R. (Eds), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical
and Research Foundation, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 325-345.
Bamberger, P. (2008), “Beyond contextualization: using context theories to narrow the micro-macro
gap in management research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 839-846.
Bernardin, H.J. and Beatty, R.W. (1984), Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at
Work, Kent Publishing Co, Boston, MA.
Bernardin, H.J., Hagan, C.M., Kane, J.S. and Villanova, P. (1998), “Effective performance
management: a focus on precision, customers, and situational constraints”, in Smither, J.W.
(Ed.), Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice, Jossey-Bass Publishers,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-48.
Bettenhausen, K.L. and Fedor, D.B. (1997), “Peer and upward appraisals: a comparison of their
benefits and problems”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 236-263.
Boswell, W.R. and Boudreau, J.W. (2002), “Separating the developmental and evaluative Employee social
performance appraisal uses”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 391-412.
cognition
Brass, D.J. and Burkhardt, M.E. (1993), “Potential power and power use: an investigation of
structure and behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 441-470.
Brown, M., Hyatt, D. and Benson, J. (2010), “Consequences of the performance appraisal
experience”, Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 375-396.
Carson, K.P., Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1991), “Performance appraisal as effective 531
management or deadly management disease: two initial empirical investigations”, Group
and Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 143-159.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cohen, S. and Willis, T.A. (1985), “Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 310-357.
Conway, J. and Lance, C. (2010), “What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common
method bias in organizational research”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 325-334.
Cordes, C. and Dougherty, T.W. (1993), “A review and an integration of research on job burnout”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 621-657.
Day, D.V., Bedeian, A.G. and Conte, J.M. (1998), “Personality as predictor of work-related
outcomes: test of a mediated latent structural model”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 28 No. 22, pp. 2068-2088.
Dipboye, R.L. and de Pontbriand, R. (1981), “Correlates of employee reactions to performance
appraisals and appraisal systems”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2,
pp. 248-251.
Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L. and Platz-Vieno, S.J. (1990), “A contingency approach to appraisal
satisfaction: an initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and
appraisal characteristics”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 619-632.
Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L., Facteau, J.D. and Miller, J.S. (1993), “Implications of situational
constraints on performance evaluation and performance management”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 105-128.
Dutton, J.E. and Ragins, B.R. (2007), “Moving forward: positive relationships at work as a
new frontier”, in Dutton, J.E. and Ragins, B.R. (Eds), Exploring Positive Relationships at
Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation, Lawrence Erlbaum Inc., Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 387-400.
Elsbach, K.D., Barr, P.S. and Hargadon, A.B. (2005), “Identifying situated cognition in
organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 422-433.
Evans, J. (2008), “Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition”,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 255-278.
Evans, J.S.B.T. and Stanovich, K.E. (2013), “Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing
the debate”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 223-241.
Farr-Wharton, R. and Brunetto, Y. (2007), “Organisational relationship quality and service
employee acceptance of change in SMEs: a social exchange perspective”, Journal of
Management and Organization, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 114-125.
Feldman, J.M. (1981), “Beyond attribution theory: cognitive processes in performance appraisal”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 127-148.
Ferris, G.R., Munyon, T.P., Basik, K.J. and Buckley, M.R. (2008), “The performance evaluation
context: social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship components”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 146-163.
PR Findley, H.M., Giles, W.F. and Mossholder, K.W. (2000), “Performance appraisal process and
system facets: relationships with contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
43,4 Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 634-640.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991), Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G.R. (1987), “The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and
meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 287-322.
532 Frink, D.D., Hall, A.T., Perryman, A.A., Ranft, A.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R. and Royle,
M.T. (2008), “A meso-level theory of accountability in organizations”, in Martocchio, J.J.
(Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI Press, Stamford, CT,
pp. 177-245.
Gable, S.L., Reis, H.T., Impett, E.A. and Asher, E.R. (2004), “What do you do when things go
right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 228-245.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y. and Cooper, C. (2008), “A meta-analysis of work demand stressors
and job performance: examining main and moderating effects”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 227-271.
Giles, W.F. and Mossholder, K.W. (1990), “Employee reactions to contextual and session
components of performance appraisal”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 4,
pp. 371-377.
Giles, W.F., Findley, H.M. and Feild, H.S. (1997), “Procedural fairness in performance appraisal:
beyond the review session”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 493-506.
Gordon, M.E. and Stewart, L.P. (2009), “Conversing about performance: discursive resources
for the appraisal interview”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 473-501.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25, pp. 161-178.
Gruman, J.A. and Saks, A.M. (2011), “Performance management and employee engagement”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123-136.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hodgkinson, G.P. (2003), “The interface of cognitive and industrial, work and organizational
psychology”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W. and Kerr, S. (1986), “Moderator variables in leadership research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 88-112.
Hox, J. (2010), Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications, Routledge, New York, NY.
Jawahar, I.M. (2005), “Do raters consider the influence of situational factors on observed
performance when evaluating performance? Evidence from three experiments”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 6-41.
Konrad, A.M. and Linnehan, F. (1995), “Formalized HRM structures: coordinating equal
employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices?”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 787-820.
Korsgaard, M.A. and Roberson, L. (1995), “Procedural justice in performance evaluation – the
role of instrumental and noninstrumental voice in performance-appraisal discussions”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 657-669.
Laabs, J. (1998), “Show them where you’re headed”, Workforce, Vol. 77 No. 11, pp. 45-48.
Landy, F.J. and Farr, J.L. (1980), “Performance rating”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 87 No. 1, Employee social
pp. 72-107.
cognition
Landy, F.J., Barnes, J.L. and Murphy, K.R. (1978), “Correlates of perceived fairness and
accuracy of performance evaluation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 6,
pp. 751-754.
Meyer, H.H. (1991), “A solution to the performance appraisal feedback enigma”, Executive
(19389779), Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 68-76. 533
Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nathan, B.R., Mohrman Jr, A.M. and Milliman, J. (1991), “Interpersonal relations as a context for
the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: a longitudinal study”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 352-369.
Peters, L.H. and O’Connor, E.J. (1980), “Situational constraints and work outcomes: the influences
of a frequently overlooked construct”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 391-397.
Pichler, S. (2012), “The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: a meta-
analysis”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 709-732.
Prasad, K. and Akhilesh, K.B. (2002), “Global virtual teams: what impacts their design and
performance?”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 8 Nos 5/6, pp. 102-112.
Rousseau, V. and Aubé, C. (2010), “Social support at work and affective commitment to the
organization: the moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions”,
The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 150 No. 4, pp. 321-340.
Senatra, P.T. (1980), “Role conflict, role ambiguity, and organizational climate in a public
accounting firm”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 594-603.
Sims, J.H.P., Gioia, D.A. and Longenecker, C.O. (1987), “Behind the mask: the politics of employee
appraisal”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 183-193.
Sutton, R.I. and Kahn, R.L. (1987), “Prediction, understanding, and control as antidotes to
organizational stress”, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 272-285.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.
Tziner, A., Latham, G.P., Price, B.S. and Haccoun, R. (1996), “Development and validation of a
questionnaire for measuring perceived political considerations in performance appraisal”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 179-190.
Van Fleet, D.D., Peterson, T.O. and Van Fleet, E.W. (2000), “Closing the performance feedback
gap with expert systems”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 38-53.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work”, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, Elsevier Science/
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-74.
Williams, L.J. and O’Boyle, E. (2008), “Measurement models for linking latent variables and
indicators: a review of human resource management research using parcels”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 233-242.
Williams, L.J., Ford, L.R. and Nguyen, N. (2002), “Basic and advanced measurement models
for confirmatory factor analysis”, in Rogelberg, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Research
Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,
pp. 366-389.
PR Appendix
Reactions to performance evaluation processes (cf. Dipboye and de Pontbriand, 1981; Dobbins
43,4 et al., 1990; Giles and Mossholder, 1990; Landy et al., 1978):
. The performance appraisal system is too complex for the average salaried employee to
understand (R).
. The meetings and training sessions which were used to introduce the performance
534 appraisal system were not very effective (R).
. The performance appraisal system needs to be monitored better to be sure that
supervisors discuss appraisals with their subordinates (R).
. The appraisal system gives employees enough time to prepare for an appraisal.
. Appraisal interviews in our system are conducted in a friendly but business-like manner.
. The appraisal process encourages supervisors to use examples to illustrate the points that
they make.
. The appraisal process provides sufficient time set aside for an appraisal.
. I feel comfortable expressing my feelings to my supervisor during the appraisal process.
. I have a good understanding of the performance appraisal process at my organization.
Job resource adequacy (Peters and O’Connor, 1980):
. I receive ample information from superiors, peers, and the company to do my work.
. I receive appropriate tools, equipment, and machinery to do my work.
. I receive enough materials and supplies to do my work.
. I receive sufficient financial resources and budgetary support to accomplish my tasks.
. I receive adequate clerical and support services to do my assignments.
. My office environment (e.g. quiet, comfortable temperature, well-lighted, uncluttered,
private) facilitates my work.
. Considering time limits imposed and other factors such as meetings, interruptions, and
non job-related distractions, I have sufficient time available to do my work.
Coworker relationship quality (Bettenhausen and Fedor, 1997):
. I have a great deal of respect for my co-workers as being professional in our line of work.
. My coworkers create an atmosphere conducive to doing my work.
. I get along well with my coworkers.
. I consider my coworkers my friends.
. I’m comfortable sharing my problems with my coworkers.
. Even when they disagree with me, my coworkers recognize and respect the value of my
judgments and decisions.
Communication adequacy (Day et al., 1998):
. Communication of organization policies and activities is accurate and complete.
. Communications within the organization are prompt, timely, and flow both up and down.
. The channels of communication within the organization are well understood.
 Time preparation: Employee social
. Approximately how much time did you spend preparing for your last performance cognition
appraisal?
J 0 minutes
J 15 minutes
J 30 minutes
535
J 45 minutes
J 1 hour or more

Corresponding author
Dr Amy Klemm Verbos can be contacted at: verbo1a@cmich.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats