SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2014, 42(8), 1315-1324

© Society for Personality Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.8.1315

JOB SATISFACTION AS A MEDIATOR IN THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE
BEHAVIOR

XU ZHANG, BEI HU, AND MIN QIU

Huazhong University of Science and Technology

We explored the mediating effect of job satisfaction in the relationship between employees’
performance appraisal and their voice behavior. A questionnaire was administered to 864
employees at enterprises representing high-tech industrial clusters from 5 cities in China.
Developmental performance appraisal was found to have a more positive influence on
employees’ voice behavior than evaluative performance appraisal did. Compared with
prohibitive voice behavior, both developmental and evaluative types of performance appraisal
had a more positive impact on promotive voice behavior, and job satisfaction was found to
play a mediating role in the relationship between these variables.

Keywords: performance appraisal, developmental appraisal, evaluative appraisal, voice

behavior, prohibitive voice, promotive voice, job satisfaction.

With the intense competition in today’s economic market, employees’ active

and constructive suggestions are important resources for organizations seeking to
bring about innovation and development. Voice behavior, defined as proactively
challenging the status quo and giving constructive suggestions (Van Dyne,
Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995) plays an important role in enterprises that
rely on innovation and rapid responses to retain their competitive advantage in
the complex, changeable market environment (Edmondson, 1999).
According to the purpose, voice behavior can be divided into two types. These
are promotive voice behavior, which refers to employees offering new ideas
or proposals in order to improve the current performance and operation of the

Xu Zhang, Bei Hu, and Min Qiu, School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and
Technology.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Xu Zhang, School of Management,
Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1037 Luoyu Road, Wuhan 430074, People’s
Republic of China. Email: bensonzhangxu@hotmail.com

1315
1316 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE BEHAVIOR

enterprise, and prohibitive voice behavior, which mainly refers to employees

improving the performance of an enterprise by taking the initiative to point out
problems, such as decision-making errors or inappropriate rules (Liang, Farh,
& Farh, 2012). Promotive voice behavior by employees can provide innovative
ideas for enterprise development. Employees’ constructive opinions are often the
source and starting point of an organization’s innovation (LePine & Van Dyne,
1998). In contrast, prohibitive voice behavior by employees involves preventive
recommendations in order to resolve efficiency problems in the organization.
Voice is a topic that has been the subject of many studies and scholars have
discussed voice behavior from different perspectives. However, to the best of
our knowledge no studies have been conducted on voice from the perspective of
performance appraisal orientation, despite a substantial body of research having
been conducted in which scholars have examined the impact of performance
appraisal orientation on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Our study is
unique and innovative in that we focused on exploring the different effects of the
relationship between performance appraisal and voice behavior.
There are two types of performance appraisal: evaluative and developmental
(Meyer, Kay, & French, 1965). Evaluative performance appraisal involves the
use of appraisal data for compensation management, performance evaluation,
and promotion, retention, or dismissal decisions. Developmental performance
appraisal is focused on the employee’s work improvement, training needs
identification, performance feedback, deciding on position changes, and staff
quality identification (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000). In evaluative performance
appraisal the focus is on evaluation of both past and present performance
of employees, but in developmental performance appraisal the employee’s
development needs are considered and attention is paid to improving his or her
future performance and management of his or her career (McKenna & Beech,
1995).

Performance Appraisals and Voice Behavior

Many researchers have recognized voice behavior as an important dimension
of OCB (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004; Liang et al., 2012; Van Dyne & LePine,
1998). Several researchers have also noted a correlation between performance
appraisal and OCB (Hazels & Sasse, 2008; Levy & Williams, 2004; Longenecker,
Sims, & Gioia, 1987). Performance appraisal has been considered one of the
most important human resource management practices (Boswell & Boudreau,
2002), and Wen and Liao (2010) reported that performance appraisal plays an
important role in the management of enterprises in China.
Many researchers (see e.g., Findley, Giles, & Mossholder, 2000; Levy &
Williams, 2004; Wen & Liao, 2010) have confirmed that performance appraisal
has a positive effect on OCB. The influences of each of the two types of voice
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE BEHAVIOR 1317
behavior and performance appraisal, respectively, may be different; therefore, in
this study we suggested that developmental performance appraisal would: a) help
employees enhance their capabilities, thereby enhancing employee satisfaction,
and b) motivate employees to spontaneously and creatively contribute to the
development of the enterprise. Evaluative performance appraisal, on the other
hand, is closely related to salary, promotion, and other employee benefits.
Therefore, we suggested that employee satisfaction would increase, depending
upon the employees’ interests being met and, thus, would result in them actively
providing innovative suggestions.
When the two different types of performance appraisal are used each of these
will lead to different appraisal results and, thus, employees may form different
perceptions of the appraisal; accordingly, their attitudes and behavior will change,
thus leading to different voice behaviors. Based on the above, we proposed the
following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Compared to an evaluative performance appraisal, a developmental
performance appraisal will have a more positive influence on employees’ voice
behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Both evaluative and developmental types of performance appraisal
will have a more positive impact on promotive voice behavior than on prohibitive
voice behavior.

Performance Appraisal and Employee Job Satisfaction

Performance appraisal has a close relationship with employee job satisfaction
(Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Job satisfaction is defined as “a
pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job
or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). Moreover, Boswell and Boudreau
(2000) reported finding a significant positive correlation between developmental
performance appraisal and employee job satisfaction, but not between evaluative
performance appraisal and employee job satisfaction, with a lower level
of developmental performance appraisal indicating that employee appraisal
satisfaction would also be lower. Job satisfaction has also been identified as an
important factor affecting voice behavior, and employees with higher, compared
to lower, levels of job satisfaction have been reported to be more likely to
engage in voice behavior and to offer more suggestions (Duan & Zhong, 2012;
Hagedoorn, Van Yperen, Van de Vliert, & Buunk, 1999; LePine & Van Dyne,
1998). As applied in the idea “I warn you because I like you” (Liu, Zhu, &
Yang, 2010), employees are willing to offer innovative suggestions when they
are satisfied with the organization’s performance appraisal. Developmental
performance appraisal is based on positive feedback from the results of the
assessment of the employee and helps that employee in advancing his or her
professional development. This leads to an increased job satisfaction level for
1318 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE BEHAVIOR

the employee and motivates him or her to offer innovative proposals beneficial to
the organization’s development. However, an evaluative performance appraisal
inspires employees’ economic motivation, enhances their job satisfaction level,
and motivates them so that they are more likely to engage in active voice
behavior. Based on this discussion, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction will have a mediating effect in the relationship
between performance appraisal and voice behavior.

Method

Participants and Procedure

This research was descriptive and cross-sectional. The data used to test
the hypotheses were collected from 1,200 employees in five cities in China.
The participants were employed in high-tech enterprises across the following
designations: 310 general employees, 510 first-line managers (group managers),
356 middle managers (project managers), and 24 top managers (department
managers).
Questionnaires, as an anonymous means of data collection, can reduce
pressure on respondents and, thus, allow researchers to gather more accurate
data. In this study, some of the questionnaire data were collected during on-site
administration, and other responses were gathered online. After invalid responses
were excluded, the sample consisted of 864 participants (valid rate of response =
72%). Of the participants 45.1% were men and 54.9% were women; and in terms
of educational background 3.6% had a high-school-level qualification, 70.8% an
undergraduate degree, 16.8% a master’s degree, and 8.8% a doctoral degree. The
average period of tenure in the current position was 4.2 years (SD = 1.3) and 32.5
years was the average age (SD = 4.5).

Measures
To measure performance appraisal, we used seven items from the Performance
Appraisal Questionnaire (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000), three of which concern
evaluative performance appraisal (e.g., “The performance appraisal results
decide my salary level” and “The performance appraisal results have strong links
with my promotion”), and four of which concern developmental performance
appraisal (e.g., “My appraisal results will help me to identify my training needs”
and “The performance appraisal can help identify my strengths and weaknesses”).
The questionnaire has a Cronbach’s alpha of .839.
We used a five-item perception questionnaire, developed by Hackman and
Oldham (1975), to measure job satisfaction. A sample item is: “Overall, I am
very satisfied with this job” and the questionnaire has a Cronbach’s alpha of .851.
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE BEHAVIOR 1319
To measure employees’ voice behavior, we adopted the 11-item questionnaire
developed by Liang et al. (2012). It consists of five items to evaluate promotive
voice behavior, e.g., “Proactively voice your constructive suggestions that can
help the unit reach its goals,” and six items to measure prohibitive voice behavior,
e.g., “Voice your opinion on things that might affect efficiency in the work unit,
even if it is embarrassing.” The questionnaire has a Cronbach’s alpha of .923.
All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale with response options ranging
from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
We considered gender, age, tenure, and educational level as control variables
because these variables may influence employees’ extrarole behaviors (Liang et
al., 2012).

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS version 17.0. We conducted a hierarchical
regression analysis and tested for the effect of the control variables on the
outcome variable, the effect of the independent variable on the outcome variable,
and the mediating effect of job satisfaction. To test for the mediating effect, it
is necessary first to check the direct effect of the independent variable and the
outcome variable. By using hierarchical regression analysis the effect of the
independent variable on the mediating variable is analyzed, then the effect of the
mediating variable on the outcome variable is tested. After that, the mediating
variable is brought into the model to test whether job satisfaction has a fully
mediating effect or a partially mediating effect.

Results

Model 7 in Table 1 shows that there was a significant relationship between

developmental performance appraisal and promotive voice behavior, and also
between evaluative performance appraisal and promotive voice behavior.
The results in Model 4 show that developmental performance appraisal had a
significant positive impact on prohibitive voice behavior, and that there was a
significant relationship between evaluative performance appraisal and promotive
voice behavior. The results indicate that performance appraisal had a positive
impact on voice behavior, and that developmental performance appraisal had a
stronger influence on employees’ voice behavior than did evaluative performance
appraisal. These findings supported Hypotheses 1 and 2.
The results in Model 5 show that, after controlling other variables, job
satisfaction fully mediated the relationship between evaluative performance
appraisal and prohibitive voice behavior, and, as shown in Model 8, fully
mediated the relationship between evaluative performance appraisal and
promotive voice behavior. There was a significant mediating effect of job
 1320

Table 1. Results of Mediation Analyses of Job Satisfaction

Variable Job satisfaction Prohibitive voice behavior Promotive voice behavior

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Gender .019 -.025 .035 .001 .014 .088** .049 .062

Age .081 .042 .062 .032 .011 .066 .030 .009
Education -.162*** -.115*** -.125*** -.089** -.028 -.189*** -.147*** -.088***
Tenure -.187*** -.077* -.220*** -.136** -.096** -.244*** -.146*** -.107**
EDA – .184*** – .117** .020 – .189*** .094**
DPA – .445*** – .362*** .128** – .372*** .144***
JS – – – – .525*** – – .513***
R2 .047 .379 .051 .247 .418 .09 .350 .513
Adj. R2 .043 .374 .047 .241 .413 .085 .345 .509
R2 .047*** .332*** .051*** .196*** .171*** .090*** .260*** .164***
F 10.641*** 87.088*** 11.558*** 46.758*** 87.869*** 21.167*** 76.782*** 128.973***

Note. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05. EPA = evaluative performance appraisal, DPA = developmental performance appraisal, JS = job satisfaction.
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE BEHAVIOR
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE BEHAVIOR 1321
satisfaction in the relationship between developmental performance appraisal
and promotive voice behavior (Model 8), and also in the relationship between
developmental performance appraisal and prohibitive voice behavior (Model 5).
Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Discussion

Our objectives in this research were to explore the relationship between

appraisal of employees’ performance and their voice behavior and to measure
the mediating effect of job satisfaction in this relationship. We found that
both evaluative and developmental types of performance appraisal had a
positive influence on employees’ voice behavior. Boswell and Boudreau (2002)
concluded that the aims of development-oriented performance appraisal were
to improve employees’ attitude, increase their experience, and add to their
skills, all of which can significantly enhance employees’ satisfaction with the
organization. Shore et al. (2004) also reported that when employees perceive
that the managers in their organization care for and support them, they tend to
give more positive feedback, and our results supported this finding. We found a
positive correlation between performance appraisal orientation and the two types
of employees’ voice behavior. Compared with the evaluative type, the effect of
developmental performance appraisal on voice behavior was more significant.
Evaluative performance appraisal stimulates both promotive and prohibitive
voice behaviors because it is closely related to employees’ salaries, promotion,
and other employee benefits. However, our results showed that, compared
with salary, promotion, and other benefits associated with an evaluative type
of performance appraisal, employees paid more attention to a developmental
performance appraisal, by way of improving both their ability to comprehend and
the quality of their performance in the job.
When managers in an organization appraise employees’ performance using
an evaluative method, employees with higher levels of job satisfaction will be
more proactive in taking the initiative to voice their observations about problems
or errors in the organization. In this study we covered new ground in that in
past research no thorough examination had been made of the effect of the two
types of performance appraisal on the two types of voice behavior. We found
that, based on the influence of the two types of performance appraisal and the
mediating effect of job satisfaction, employees tended to offer more innovative
than inhibitive suggestions. The results also showed that employees with a
high degree of job satisfaction were more inclined to engage in challenging,
innovative thinking, and to be highly motivated by rewards.
Developmental performance appraisal enhances employees’ job satisfaction
level and stimulates their desire to participate actively in the management of the
1322 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE BEHAVIOR

enterprise, such that they will be willing to engage in promotive voice behavior,
which is needed for business innovation and competitiveness. Moreover,
promotive voice behavior of employees is a powerful safeguard for the
improvement of the performance of the enterprise in rapidly changing markets
(Whiting, Podsakoff, & Pierce, 2008).
In terms of study limitations, our participants were employed by high-tech
companies and may have been more likely than employees in other industries to
engage in intense, innovative thinking. Whether or not this is relevant with regard
to voice behavior remains to be determined. Further, given that our sample was
sourced solely from enterprises in industrial clusters, in future studies researchers
may consider conducting a comparative study with nonclustered high-tech
industrial enterprises.

References

Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and
appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11,
283-299. http://doi.org/cgfbgb
Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2002). Separating the developmental and evaluative performance
appraisal uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 391-412. http://doi.org/cggjj9
Duan, J.-Y., & Zhong, J.-A. (2012). Investigating the relationship between job satisfaction and
voice behavior moderated by organizational commitment. Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management, 21, 26-30.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. http://doi.org/b9rmv3
Farh, J.-L., Zhong, C.-B., & Organ, D. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s
Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241-253. http://doi.org/bz2hqh
Findley, H. M., Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (2000). Performance appraisal process and system
facets: Relationships with contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 634-640.
http://doi.org/bhkmtm
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. http://doi.org/chz
Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N., Van de Vliert, E., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Employees’ reactions to
problematic events: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job
satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 309-321.
Hazels, B., & Sasse, C. M. (2008). Forced ranking: A review. SAM Advanced Management Journal,
73, 35-39.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
376-407. http://doi.org/bqbpgv
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 853-868. http://doi.org/fccvp7
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and
framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881-905. http://doi.org/fdm8fn
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive
voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71-92. http://doi.org/szf
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND VOICE BEHAVIOR 1323
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee
identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189-202. http://
doi.org/bx7rxq
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., Jr., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of
employee appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
McKenna, E., & Beech, N. (1995). The essence of human resource management. London, UK:
Prentice-Hall.
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard
Business Review, 43, 123-129.
Shore, L., Tetrick, L., Taylor, M., Coyle Shapiro, J., Liden, R., McLean Parks, J., … Van Dyne, L.
(2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. In G.
R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp.
291-370). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 215-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct
and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119. http://doi.org/b2bw8v
Wen, P., & Liao, J. (2010). The influence of different types of performance appraisal on employee
appraisal reaction: A study based on appraisal purposes [In Chinese]. Nankai Management
Review, 12, 142-150.
Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice,
and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
125-139. http://doi.org/fjbv66
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.