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

net/publication/338159868

Performance Management and Job Satisfaction in Pharmaceutical Companies

in Egypt

Article · June 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 590

3 authors, including:

Hazem Halim
The British University in Egypt
7 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hazem Halim on 25 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Performance Management and Job Satisfaction in Pharmaceutical Companies in
Egypt

Karim Salem Nadine Essam Hazem Halim

Lecturer of Public Human Resource Professor of Human
Administration Management Senior Resource Management
Faculty of Business Specialist Faculty of Tourism and
Administration, Economics and Hotel Management
Political Science Suez Canal University
The British University in Egypt

April, 2013

1
Abstract:
Performance management is a strategic and integrated approach to delivering
sustained success for organizations by improving the performance of teams and
individual contributors. Much of the recent descriptive and empirical studies
recognize the importance of performance management as a system in improving
organizational performance and employee productivity standards. However, there is a
scarcity in the literature regarding the criteria by which the effectiveness of
performance management systems are judged from public sector employees’
viewpoint; and the impact of these criteria on employee level of job satisfaction. This
study ventures to close this gap through identifying the constituents of a performance
management experience in the public sector, and the reaction of public sector
employees towards the identified criteria in government owned pharmaceutical
companies in Egypt. The constituents of performance management experience were
identified in this study as: employee feel of fairness; employee belief in management
support; management follow-up on employee development/career plans and finally
the development of competence–based appraisals. A case study methodical
framework was developed to achieve the objectives of this quantitative research
study. Using a structured questionnaire form, data was collected from a sample of 60
senior and middle level managers in 3 government owned pharmaceutical companies.
The data was statistically analyzed using the SPSS software. Correlations and
regression analyses results indicated that there is a high positive relationship between
the identified constituents of performance management experience and the level of
public sector employees’ job satisfaction. As a result, an attempt was made to design
a self-evaluation theoretical model to be applied for an enhanced constructive
performance management experience.
Key Words: Performance Management Experience – Public Sector Employee Satisfaction

Background:
Recent descriptive and empirical studies recognized the importance of quality
performance management experience on the level of organizational effectiveness
(Bouckaert and Halligan, 2006), evidenced by an abundance of published work
attempting to understand the topic from different angles and perspectives. One of the
angles that researchers are recently scrutinizing is the effect of performance
management on employee level of job satisfaction.

The importance of a performance management system stems from its role in

facilitating the evaluation of the organization’s performance, its level of growth and
development, and its responsiveness to its constituency. As a result at any given point
when deviation from planned goals takes place, performance management systems
tackle such deviation by flagging it and offering corrective measures.

Despite the different divergence in views regarding the meaning of performance and
how it is managed; most definitions lead to the conclusion that when managing
performance, both inputs (behaviour) and outputs (results) need to be considered.
This is called the mixed model of performance which covers competence levels and

2
achievement as well as objective setting and review (Armstrong, 2000). In view of
that, performance management is regularly constructed as a consolidated set of
procedures involving planning and assessment, that flow down through the
organization linking all organizational levels and employees with the agreed upon
strategy (Rogers, 1990; Armstrong, 2009). The process is always constructed to
influence the performance of a person in the short and medium term. It is built from
what influences people and brought back to support the strategy and the planning
assumptions and objectives.

Accordingly, an effective performance management process normally includes a

performance appraisal practice that would help management set targets and goals for
employees and monitor their performance on a regular basis. However, the existence
of a negatively perceived performance management system becomes dysfunctional
and rather obstructive in the goal achievement process when employees see that the
system is failing in their development and motivation (Fletcher, 1993) and becomes a
matter of formalistic nature (Riggs, 1973) in which rules, regulations, and processes
are only there to show that they exist instead of effectively using them.

The end in mind is to have an agreed upon set of goals and the means of achieving
those goals and the tools of directing people within the organization in order to
improve the chances of reaching planned goals (Weiss and Hartle, 1997). Although a
solid relationship exists between effectively managing people through sound strategic
human resource management and higher organizational performance levels whether
strategic or financial (Delery and Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995), evidence shows the
prevalent dissatisfaction with performance management and appraisal systems across
different industries (Bowels and Coates, 1993; Davis and Landa, 1999; Fletcher,
1993; IPD, 1998; Roberts, 1998).

Based on the above, there is a continuous need to study the impact of performance
management as a system on the level of employee satisfaction. Moreover, there is a
continuous need to determine the criteria that determine the level of employee
satisfaction in this particular context. Some research studies have attempted to
measure the impact of performance management as a process on the level of
achieving organizational objectives. However, limited studies have been conducted to
examine the impact of the constituents of the performance management experience
collectively and measure the individual effect of each constituent on the level of
employee satisfaction. This study ventures to close this gap through: a- Identifying the
main constituents of the performance appraisal experience in the government sector.
b- Examining whether or not those constituents have any impact on the level of
employee satisfaction in this sector.

It can be noted that from a theoretical point of view, the ability and the way senior
management can implement an efficient and effective performance management
system would significantly affect the quality of employee appraisal experience.
However, this hypothesis must be empirically examined. The early writings of Mayer
and Davis (1999) proposed that research should seek to understand how performance
management and in particular performance appraisals accuracy affects reactions to the
appraisal and as a result the overall satisfaction of the employee. Cardy and Dobbins
(1994) mirrored this sentiment and argued that such perceptual reactions to the

3
appraisal system are clearly important to the appraisal system's operational
effectiveness.

Some studies ventured to discuss the impact of different elements on employee level
of job satisfaction. It should be noted, however, that those studies were focusing
mainly on performance appraisal as a component of the performance management
system; while this study is taking a more holistic approach by discussing the effect of
the performance management system as a whole on the level of employee satisfaction.

A key outcome from past studies was that performance appraisal as a practice is
tagged as effective only if perceived as fair and equitable by all stakeholders involved
in the process (Ilgen et al, 1979; Murphy and Cleveland, 1991; Cardy and Dobbins,
1994). Employees are also satisfied when they perceive the system as
nondiscriminatory and reasonable; as their managers provide them with feedback of
their performance and align the pay and rewards to their contribution. It can be argued
that performance feedback have a significant impact on job satisfaction and
motivation; in addition, they emphasize that employees learn and develop as a result
of receiving feedback on their performance (Palaiologos, 2011).

Many researchers categorize the perception of fairness as distributive, procedural and

interactional justice (Narcisse and Harcourt, 2008). Greenberg (1993) cited in
Thruston and McNall (2010) states that distributive justice is perceived by the
employees when their contribution to work is aligned with their rewards and pay
structures. Further research indicates that employees may accept injustice in the
distribution of reward if they perceive the procedures as fair (Leventhal, 1980).
Procedural justice describes how fairness takes place in the allocation process
(Thruston and McNall, 2010). Folger et al (1992) propose three factors that will lead
to fair allocation of remuneration. These are: clear understanding of objectives, fair
hearing of the employees’ viewpoints about their performance and judgment based on
evidence and facts.

The term interactional justice refers to the interpersonal treatment between the
employee and the supervisor or manager during the performance appraisal process. It
can be affected by the extent to which the manager provides the employee with
disparaging judgement without evidence and disrespectful treatment without fair
hearing of the employee opinion (Bies, 2001 cited in Narcisse and Harcourt, 2008).
One can conclude that employees are more committed and satisfied from their
organizations when they perceive distributive and procedural justice (Cohen-Charash
and Spector, 2001).

Employee belief in management support is another important dimension that affects

the performance appraisal experience and as a result the performance management
experience; consequently leads to employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Brown et
al., (2010) state that the attitudes of the managers and supervisors affect the outcomes
and quality of the performance appraisal experience. Thus, the performance appraisal
process should be maintained by the employees’ belief in management support.
Perceived supervisory support is the state in which the supervisors care about the
employees, value their contribution and effort and provide them with necessary
information and resources (Eisenberger et al, 2002).

4
Although the effect of management support on organizational performance is well
documented in the literature, few studies also highlighted the unwillingness and
refusal of considerable number of managers to provide the necessary support during
the management of performance. These studies also highlighted the impact of this on
overall employee level of satisfaction. Heathfield (2007) conducted a survey to
determine which tasks the managers hate the most. It was noticed that managers first
hate firing employees and second dislike conducting performance appraisals.
Pettijohn et al. (2001) state that managers conduct appraisals in an arbitrary and
subjective manner. As, they believe that the process is time and money consuming,
increase the level of conflict and stress in the organizations and produce few rewards.
Those managers belief conforms to a great extent with Deming’s (1982) criticism of
performance appraisals as one of the deadly sins of management as it nourishes short-
term performance, demolishes long-term planning, builds fear, destroys teamwork,
and cultivates damaging rivalry and politics.

Some studies also concluded that many managers avoid the appraisal process because
they worry about the consequences of conducting it and believe that it is not worth
doing as compared to its results and returns (Letham et al., 2009 cited in Brown et al.,
2010). Moreover, there are many reservations on the feedback effectiveness given by
the managers during the appraisal process. Walsh and fisher (2005) argue that the
process causes fear and anxiety for both the managers and the employees. Managers
find it hard to provide receptive feedback for their employees; as many have failed in
mastering the techniques of providing feedback without hostility, listening sincerely
to employees’ point of views praising them on their favourable performance, and
dealing with them constructively. As a result, managers always seek to postpone
delivering feedback to avoid the impact of providing it. On the other hand, employees
also feel anxious about the feedback and how they are rated. Consequently, they use
feedback-seeking strategies to reduce the feedback they will receive from their
supervisors and relate negative ratings and performance flaws to aspects beyond their
control.

One can conclude that the perceived supervisory support and management support for
the appraisal process can enhance the employees’ experience with the process. Byrne
et al. (2012) claim that when the supervisor supports the appraisal process through
providing feedback, training, information and resources, the employees are more
likely to trust the supervisor, increase commitment to the organization, feel a high
level of safety and become more satisfied with their jobs. Through acts of recognition
and support by the supervisors, they shape perceptions among the employees that the
appraisals are important to their progress and their efforts are valued and recognized.
Moreover, Walsh and Fisher (2005) state that there is a positive relationship between
management support to the appraisal process and the employees’ level of motivation,
self-efficacy and satisfaction in the workplace. Accordingly, as the manager become
more directive in providing feedback on employees’ performance, the more satisfied
they will be. On the other hand, frequent indication that the supervisors places little
importance on one's well-being and contribution, would reduce perceived supervisory
support and lessen the employee's perceived commitment to the supervisor as well as
the organization as whole. Thus, employees would decrease their level of
organizational commitment and reduce their performance of standard job activities.
Moreover, Employees would further reduce organizational involvement by increasing

5
the level of absenteeism and turnover intentions due to dissatisfaction in the
workplace (Shore and Shore, 1995).

Lack of developing a follow-up plan after conducting the appraisals is one of the
critical failures of management which in turn lead to employee dissatisfaction. It is
always recommended that managers provide employees with a follow up plan directly
after conducting the appraisal interview. It is much better to emphasize changing
unfavourable behaviour and performance immediately and conduct periodic meetings
with the employees to prevent them from returning to the unfavourable behaviour
again. The follow-up plan starts by making sure that the goals are achieved; and if
not why they were not achieved. Hence, the managers should determine areas that
need improvement and provide training and development activities on those areas
(McKirchy, 2008; Swan, 2007). Development and continuous follow up plan has
shown a significant role in employee level of job satisfaction (Cleveland et al, 81989).
Boswell and Boudreaw (2000) have proven that employees are satisfied and
committed to the organization when their training needs are properly identified as
they feel that they are valued by the organization and have future in it. According to
Melymuka ( 2000), Jones et al, (2008), and Boswell and Boudreaw (2000) there is a
positive relationship between providing training and development activities to
employees and job satisfaction particularly when the training content is designed to
acquire new skills related to improving and developing performance.

Another dimension of performance management as a system which impact employee

level of satisfaction is the existence of a competence matrix in the organization. The
existence of a competence matrix implies the existence of a competence based
appraisals. According to Spencer and Spencer (1993), when the desired level of
competence is clear to the employees, they will be discontented from their current
performance standards and become more aware of the actions they should take to shift
from the current performance standards to the desired one.

It should be noted that performance management and appraisal experience among

government employees in specific and among Egyptian government owned companies
to be more precise requires the attention to certain dimensions that are highly relevant
and sometimes exclusive to public administration and public personnel management.
Although governments agree on the importance of and their continued commitment to
performance and its significance to public management, yet there is no solid agreement
on defining the goals of government improvement (Bouckaert and Halligan, 2006).
First there is the public management dimension and the fact that there is an entrenched
performance appraisal system in Egyptian government owned companies. The fact that
the system exists does not deny the utter failure of that system. As previously
mentioned, the performance measurement system exists as a formal tool without
delivering any of its expected outcomes. This fact probably stems from the inherited
seniority system of promotion in the Egyptian government. There are many
characteristics of the Egyptian government’s management system that include apathy,
unquestioning respect for authority, norms limiting productivity, excessive concern for
job security and stability, the rigid application of rule, and the inability to accept
change (Palmer et al, 1988). All these characteristics are considered major
impediments to both implement and sustain a performance oriented management
system in the government’s owned companies. The importance of this paper stems

6
from trying to fill the gap in understanding the impact of performance management in
a culture that has been notably running on a non- performance system for decades.

Methodology:

Secondary data was collected from journals, textbooks and online databases. The
literature review provided valuable insights and perceptions regarding views of
different researchers and helped to identify the gap in the literature.

Primary data was collected through designing and distributing structured

questionnaire forms. This data collection instrument was believed to be effective and
contributed to the reliability of this study by endorsing greater consistency. The
questionnaire form consisted of groupings of questions rated on a five-point Likert
Scale. Scrutinizing the literature yielded the notion that the overall quality of an
employee performance management experience is determined through measuring four
essential components which are: feel of fairness; employee belief in management
support; development of employee follow-up/career plans and finally the
development of competence-based appraisals. The questionnaire structure and design
were formulated around those four focal points.

The questionnaire form consisted of 30 questions divided into four main groups. The
first category targeted employee feel of fairness. This was measured by assessing:
distributive justice (assessing rewards and pay related to performance); procedural
justice (assessing the effectiveness of the criteria used in performance appraisal
process) and interactional justice (assessing the employee/evaluator procedures of
discussing the appraisal results). The second category of questions targeted employee
beliefs in management support. This was measured through examining the extent to
which senior management provides employees with the needed information and
resources; and the extent to which senior management regularly reviews pre-
determined work objectives and guide employees in case of deviations. The third
category of questions was directed to employee development and career plans. This
was measured by covering the extent to which employees are exposed to regular
training as well as training effectiveness. The fourth category focused on the used
methods of developing competence-based frameworks and related competence based
appraisals formats. This required examining the clarity of the organizational goals,
management performance expectations and the existence of comprehensive
competence matrix.
This research was conducted using a case study methodology approach. This
approach explores a research topic or phenomenon within its context or within a
number of real life context (Saunders et al., 2012). A case study methodical approach
was used because it provided in depth analysis rather than breadth and allows
profound understanding of details from a specific case (Yin, 1993). A sample of a
total of 60 employees was selected form three government owned pharmaceutical
companies in Egypt, using simple random sampling technique. Names of the
companies were not disclosed for confidentiality purposes dictated by senior
managers. Respondents were selected from two managerial levels. Senior and
middle managers were selected as they have experienced and exposed to performance
management systems.

7
The collected data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science
software (SPSS). The software provided a good opportunity to examine the
constituents of performance management experience as an independent variables and
their effect on job satisfaction as a dependent variable. Correlation analysis was
employed to find the type and significance of relationships between each independent
variable and the dependent variable. However, correlation analysis did not provide a
full explanation of the cause and effect relationship between the variables. Therefore,
linear regression analysis was also conducted to determine the effect of each
constituent on the level of employees’ job satisfaction. In addition, a multicollinearity
test was conducted to assess the collinearity between the independent variables.

Results and Discussion:

The objectives of this study were to identify the constituents of an employee

performance management experience, and to examine the reaction of employees
towards the identified criteria in government owned pharmaceutical companies in
Egypt. Recognition of the importance of the following elements as main constituents
of a performance management experience has grown in the literature. Feel of fairness;
belief in management support, development of follow-up plans and development of
competence based appraisals are the main identified constituents that shape up
employee experience in most organizations. That conclusion was reached based on
an extensive scrutiny of the literature. It was the aim then to examine the impact of
those constituents individually and collectively on the overall level of job satisfaction
at the workplace. Correlation analysis and linear regression models were employed to
examine these relationships.

As shown in Table 1, Correlation analysis was used to measure the significance of

impact of each constituent on employee level of job satisfaction. The Feel of fairness,
belief in management support, development of follow-up plans and development of
competence- based appraisals are significantly correlated with job satisfaction (r =
.68, .80, .816, .804; p <.005) respectively.
Table 1 : Correlations

8
 Job Management Follow Competency
satisfaction Fairness support up based
Job satisfaction Pearson
1 .682** .800** .816** .804**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60
Fairness Pearson
.682** 1 .668** .586** .771**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60
Management Pearson
.800** .668** 1 .673** .669**
support Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60
Follow-up Pearson
.816** .586** .673** 1 .680**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60
Competency based Pearson
.804** .771** .669** .680** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).

Linear regression model was administered to examine the relationship of each

constituent of performance management experience as independent variable with job
satisfaction as a dependent variable.

Independent Beta R square Adjusted Significance F T

Variables R square
Fairness .682 .465 .455 .000 50.313 7.093
Management .800 .640 .634 .000 102.992 10.148
Support
Follow-up .816 .666 .660 .000 115.414 10.743
plans
Competency- .804 .646 .640 .000 105.672 10.280
based
Appraisals

As shown in Table 2, Feel of fairness significantly predicted job satisfaction level, β

=.682, t= 7.093, p < .001. It also explained a significant proportion of variance, R
square= .46, f (1, 58) = 50.31, p < .005. Belief in management support significantly
predicted job satisfaction level, β = .80, t = 10.148, p < .001. It also explained a
significant proportion of variance, R square = .64, f (1, 58) = 102.992, p < .005.
Third, development of career/follow-up plans significantly predicted job satisfaction
level, β = .816, t = 10.743, p < .001. It also explained a significant proportion of

9
variance, R square = .816, f (1, 58) = 115.414, p < .005. Fourth, development of
competence-based appraisals significantly predicted job satisfaction level, β = .804, t
= 10.280, p <.001. It also explained a significant proportion of variance, R square =
.804, f (1, 58) = 105.672, p <.005. Accordingly, the development of follow up plans
showed the highest positive relationship with the level of job satisfaction.
Due to the high significant correlations that exist between the four identified
constituents of performance management experience as independent variables, a
multiple regression model was not used due to multicollinearity. As, the independent
variable that is known to be an important predicator ends up having a regression
coefficient that is not significant and having a negative sign instead of a positive sign.
In addition, if one independent variable is removed or added, a radical change
occurred in the remaining regression coefficients (Lind et al., 2010). As a result, a
linear regression model was used to examine the 4 constituents of appraisal
experience collectively as independent variable with job satisfaction as dependent
variable to measure , Y= bo + bx5. The Y represents the dependent variable; while X5
represents the four constituents collectively.

Table 3 : Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .884a .781 .777 3.85380

a. Predictors: (Constant), appraisal experience

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 3065.579 1 3065.579 206.411 .000a

Residual 861.404 58 14.852

Total 3926.983 59

a. Predictors: (Constant), appraisal experience

b. Dependent Variable: job satisfaction

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.305 2.751 .474 .637
Appraisal experience .556 .039 .884 14.367 .000
a. Dependent Variable: job satisfaction

As shown in Table 3, the regression analysis revealed a positive relationship between

the overall performance management experience and the level of job satisfaction. The

10
constituents of the experience significantly predicated job satisfaction, β = .884, t=
14.36, p < .001. In addition, it explained a significant proportion of variance, R
square= .78, f (1, 58) = 206.411, p <.005. As a result, the regression equation is equal
to Y= 1.305 + .556 (X5).
The results showed that “feel of fairness” through conducting the performance
management process and especially the performance appraisals is positively related to
the level of employee job satisfaction. The findings of the study support the conducted
studies in the field of fairness and organizational justice (Sweeney & Quirin, 2009;
Colquitt, et al., 2001; Lambert, 2003; Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990). The perception
of fairness and justice in the workplace are important factors of shaping employees’
attitudes and behaviors. As Jawahar (2007) indicates, the quality of the appraisal
systems may well be based on the employees’ perceptions of fairness and response to
important facets of the appraisal process. Thus, the feel of unfairness through
conducting the appraisal and other steps in the performance management process can
lead to dissatisfaction and de-motivation (Cardy and Dobbins, 1994).
Adding to the above, previous studies have always indicated that employees are more
satisfied and show a high level of commitment when supervisors use the outcomes of
the performance management system in allocating bonuses, salary increases and
promotions (Youngcourt et al., 2007; Lowe and Vodanovich, 1995). Consequently,
the dissatisfaction of employees leads to lack of trust and negative behavioural
patterns in the organization. Greenberg (1990) also adds that perception of the three
elements of organizational justice: procedural, distributive and interactional justices
are positively related to the level of job satisfaction of employees. He stated that
organization justice is a basic requirement for the effective functioning of
organizations and the personal satisfaction of the individuals they employ.

The results of this study also illustrated that “belief in management support” is
positively related to the level of employee job satisfaction. This conforms with several
previously conducted studies (Walsh and Fisher, 2005; Shore and Shore, 1995; Guzzo
et al., 1994; McCarthy and Garavan 2001; Eisenberger et al., 2002). When senior
managers regularly review employee pre-determined objectives, provide the needed
resources and information for guidance, recognize outstanding efforts and provide
regular feedback for performance improvement, the more satisfied the employee is. In
an atmosphere of supportiveness, the manager and employees can create an effective
and honest dialogue that affect the level of growth and improvement for both of them.
Belief in management support would reinforce employee commitment to the
organization and increase their efforts to fulfil its objectives. In addition, the
feedback loop between employees and managers plays important role in enhancing
employees’ motivation, performance management and satisfaction. Hence, as
supervisors become more directive in providing feedback and needed resources for
employees’ performance improvement, the more satisfied they will be.

The results have shown that the development of follow-up plans through conducting
the performance management process has the highest positive relationship with the
level of employee job satisfaction. This is consistent with previous studies outcomes
(Byrne et al. 2012; Jones et al., 2008). When senior managers help to provide the
needed training, employees experience a high level of security within the organization
as well as high propensity of trust in their supervisors; which positively reflect on
their commitment and satisfaction levels. There is always a positive relationship
11
between providing training and development activities and increase in their level of
job satisfaction; especially when the training content is designed to acquire new skills
related to enhancing and developing performance.

The results also showed that employees are more satisfied with the perceived
experience when the performance management system sets clear performance
expectations through sets of smart objectives accompanied with sets of well-defined
competences. According to Fletcher (2004) and Tung-chun and Wan-Jung (2007),
performance appraisals should always be developed in accordance with the
competences needed by the employees to achieve a desirable level of performance in
the workplace. Performance appraisals should be developmentally oriented. This
means that they are designed to increase organizational effectiveness and to provide
the employees with the opportunity to develop any competence related deficiencies
and provide incentive for the employee being appraised and ultimately, increase
his/her level of motivation and satisfaction.

Recommendations:

The study revealed that a high quality performance appraisal experience through feel
of fairness, belief in management support, development of follow-up plans and
development of competence based appraisals can lead to a high level of employee job
satisfaction. Therefore, it is recommended that the appraiser should put more
emphasis on enhancing the appraisal experience. Based on the results of this study, a
theoretical self-evaluation model was developed in seek of highly effective
performance appraisal experience. The model is presented in the following few pages.

A Theoretical Model For Highly Effective Performance Appraisal Experience

Fairness Checklist
 Is there a clear rewarding scheme that links pay to performance? Yes No
 Do you elucidate the criteria used in the appraisal process?
 Do you base your rating on objectivity and reasoning? Yes No
 Do you clearly discuss the appraisal results with employees? Yes No
 Do you rate employees as they deserve?
 Do you recognize individual differences while rating? Yes No
Yes No
 Do you always rate employees around the middle of the rating
scale? Yes No
 Are you influenced by a single favorable or unfavorable trait?
Yes No
 Do you rate employees relative to the last person been evaluated?
Yes No

Yes No
Management support Checklist
 Is there an adequate time allocation for discussing appraisal results?
 Do employees share their own perspective in their performance? Yes No
 Do you support employees through providing relevant resources
and information? Yes No
 Do you regularly review employees’ predetermined objectives?
 Does outstanding efforts and performance commonly recognized? Yes No
 Do you guide employees on how to improve their performance?
Yes No
 Do you provide timely feedback on employees’ performance?
 Do you constructively evaluate performance according to its impact

12
 and effect on desired results? Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Follow-up Checklist
 Is there a clear follow up plan? Yes No
 Do you constantly provide employees with training and
development activities? Yes No
 Is the training provided highly effective? Yes No
 Do you provide enrichment activities? Yes No
 Are there possible chances for employees’ advancement in the
organization? Yes No

Competence- based appraisal Checklist

 Do you base the appraisal according to the competences required?
 Does the appraisal output provide direction for overcoming Yes No
competence related deficiencies?
 Do you clarify the expected goals of the organization? Yes No
 Do you set clear performance expectations? Yes No
 Do you elucidate the basis of the appraisal process? Yes No
Yes No

References:

 Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management

Practice. London: Kogan Page.
 Bayrne, Z.S., Pitts, V.E., Wilson, C.M. and Steiner, Z.J. (2012). Trusting the fair
supervisor: The role of supervisory support in the performance appraisal. Human
Resource Management Journal, 22(2), 129-147
 Boswell, W. and Boudreau, J. (2000). Employee Satisfaction with Performance
Appraisals and appraisers: The Role of Perceived Appraisal Use. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 287.
 Brown, M., Hyatt, D. and Benson, J. (2010). Consequences of the performance
appraisal experience. Personnel Review, 39 (3), 376.
 Bouckaert, G and Halligan, J. (2006). A Framework for Comparative Analysis of
Performance Management. Paper for presentation to Study Group on Productivity
and Quality in the Public Sector, Conference of European Group of Public
Administration, Università Bocconi, Milan
 Bowles, M.L. and Coates, G. (1993). Image and Substance: The Management of
Performance as Rhetoric or Reality?. Personnel Review, 22 (2): 3 -21
 Cardy, R. and Dobbins, G. (1994). Performance Appraisals: Alternative
Perspectives. Ohio: South-western.
 Cleveland, J., Murphy, K. and Williams, R. (1989). Multiple Uses of Performance
Appraisals: Prevalence & correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130-135.
 Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations:
a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human decision Processes, 86 (2),
278-321.

13
 Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C.O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y.
(2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of
organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-45.
 Davis, T. and Landa, M.J. (1999), The Trust Deficit, Canadian Manager, 24(1):
10-27
 Delery. J.E. and Doty. H.D. (1996). Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human
Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational
Performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal. 39(4): 802-35.
 Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
 Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. and Rhoades,
L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational
support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 565-573.
 Fletcher, C. (2004). Appraisal and Feedback: Making Performance review work.
London: CIPD.
 Fletcher, J. (1993). Patterns of high performance: Discovering the ways people
work best. 1st Edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
 Folger, R., konovsky, M., and Cropanzano, R. (1992). A Due Process Metaphor
for Performance Appraisal. Research in Organization Behavior, 14, 129-177.
 Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.
Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-422.
 Greenberg, J. (1993). Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human
Resource Management. In R. Cropanzano (Eds.), The Social Side of Fairness:
Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational Justice. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
 Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the
psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 617-626.
 Heathfield, S. (2007). Performance Appraisals don’t work-What does?. The
Journal for Quality and Participation, 30, 6.
 Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resources management practices on
turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of
Management Journal. 38: 635-672.
 Ilgen, D. R, Cynthnia D. F. and Susan M. T. (1979). Consequences of Individual
Feedback on Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 64: 349-
71
 IPD. (1998). UK companies help employees improve their job prospects,
according to IPD survey, Leadership & Organization development Journal, 19(1):
60.
 Jawahar, I. (2007). The influence of Perceptions of Fairness on Performance
Appraisal Reaction. Journal of Labor Resources, 28, 735-754.
 Jones, M.K, Jones, R.J., Latreille, P.L. and Sloane, P.J. (2008). Training, job
satisfaction and workplace performance in Britain: evidence from WERS 2004.
IZA discussion papers 3677, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.
 Lambert, E. (2003). The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff.
Journal of Criminal justice, 31(2), 155- 68.
 Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New
approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M.
Greenberg & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research:
27–55. New York: Plenum

14
 Lincoln, J. and Kalleberg, A. (1990). Culture, Control and commitment: A study
of work organization and work attitudes in the United States and Japan.
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
 Lind, D.A, Marchal, W.G. and Wathen, S.A. (2010). Statistical Techniques in
Business and Economics. New York: McGraw Hill.
 Lowe, R. Vodanovich, S. (1995). A field study of distributive and procedural
Justice as predicators of satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 10, 99-114.
 Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal
system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 123–136.
 McCarthy, M.A. and Garavan, N.T. (2001), “360 feedback processes:
performance improvement and employee career development”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, 25, 5-32.
 Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1991), Performance Appraisal: An
Organizational Perspective, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
 Narcisse, S. and Harcourt, M. (2008). Employee Fairness Perceptions of
Performance Appraisals: A Saint Lucian case study. The International Journal of
Human Resources Management, 19 (6), 1152-1169.
 Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P. and Panayotopoulou, L. (2011). Organizational
justice and employee satisfaction in Performance appraisal. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 35(8), 826-840.
 Palmer, M., Leila, A., and El Sayed, Y. (1988). The Egyptian Bureaucracy. 1st
Edition. USA: Caliban Books Pittsburgh PA, ABAA
 Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L.S., Taylor, A.J. and Keillor, B.D. (2001). Are
performance appraisals a bureaucratic exercise or can they be used to enhance
sales-force satisfaction?. Psychology and Marketing, 8(4), 337-364.
 Riggs, Fred W. (1973). Prismatic Society Revisited. Morriston, New Jersey:
General Learning Press.
 Roberts, G.E. (1998). Perspectives on enduring and emerging issues in
performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 27 (3): 301-20.
 Rogers, S. (1990). Performance management in Local Government. London:
Longman
 Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business
Students. Pearson: London.
 Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and
organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano and K. M. Kacmar. Organizational
politics, justice, and support: Managing social climate at work. CT Quorum Press:
Westport.
 Spencer, L.M. and Spencer S.M. (1993). Competence at work. Human Resources
Development Quarterly, 5(4), 391-395.
 Swan, W.S. (2007). Ready to use Performance Appraisal: Downloadable,
Customizable Tools for better, Faster Review. John Wiely & Sons: New Jersey.
 Sweeney, J. T., & Quirin, J. J. (2009). Accountants as layoff survivors: A
research note. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 34(6/7), 787- 795.
 Thruston, P. and McNall, L. (2010). Justice Perception of Performance Appraisals
Practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201-228.

15
  Tung-Chun, H., and Wan-Jung, H. (2007). The Casual Relationship Between Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Social Behavior & Personality: An
International Journal, 35(9), 1265-1275.
 Walsh, K. and Fisher, D. (2005). Action inquiry and performance appraisals:
Tools for Organizational learning and development. The learning organization, 12,
26-41.
 Weiss, T. and Hartle, F. (1997). Reengineering Performance Management:
Breakthroughs in Achieving Strategy through People. 1st Edition. Taylor and
Francis Publishing.
 Yin, R. (1993). Application of case study research. Newbury Park, Sage: CA.
 Youngcourt, S.S., Leiva, P.I. and Jones, R.G. (2007). Perceived purposes of
performance appraisal: correlates of individual – and positions – focused purposes
on attitudinal outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(3), 315-43.

Appendix

Research Questionnaire:
Dear Sir/Madame

This questionnaire is designed to investigate the relationship between your

performance appraisal experience and your job satisfaction. I would appreciate your
taking the time to complete it. Your responses are confidential and will be used for
research purposes only.

Thank you,

Very Very
Please circle one number for each question that Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Satisfied
comes closest to reflecting your opinion about it.

1 The goals of the organisation are clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5

My supervisor regularly reviews employees’

2 predetermined objectives. 1 2 3 4 5

The supervisor supports me through providing

3 information and resources. 1 2 3 4 5

The appraisal sets clear performance expectations that

4 enable me to work more effectively. 1 2 3 4 5

5 My last performance appraisal was accurately 1 2 3 4 5

evaluated.

6 My last performance appraisal’s rating was free form 1 2 3 4 5

bias.

16
 I was given information about the criteria used in my
7 performance evaluation. 1 2 3 4 5

My supervisor sits with me to discuss my performance

8 appraisal results. 1 2 3 4 5

9 I receive a fair pay related to my performance. 1 2 3 4 5

There is a clear rewarding scheme on which to base

10 salary and promotional decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

11 My supervisor recognizes my outstanding efforts. 1 2 3 4 5

12 I receive regular feedback from my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5

My supervisor guides me on how to improve my

13 performance. 1 2 3 4 5

I am constantly provided with training and

14 development. 1 2 3 4 5

15 The provided training is highly effective. 1 2 3 4 5

The received training courses do affect my job

16 satisfaction. 1 2 3 4 5

I am allowed to perform different operations to acquire

17 different skills. 1 2 3 4 5

There is a clear competency matrix that describes the

18 expected levels of needed competences. 1 2 3 4 5

The appraisal’s output provides clear direction for

19 overcoming existing competence related deficiencies. 1 2 3 4 5

There is an efficient communication system between

20 different managerial levels. 1 2 3 4 5

My manager is supportive in disseminating work related

21 information. 1 2 3 4 5

22 Promotion is subject to fair and systematic criteria. 1 2 3 4 5

23 I am satisfied with my total salary package. 1 2 3 4 5

17
 My manager is very supportive when it comes to work
24 related problems. 1 2 3 4 5

25 My manager is fair in assigning workloads. 1 2 3 4 5

26 My supervisor is fair in assessing my overall 1 2 3 4 5

performance.
I have the chance to perform tasks that make use of my
27 abilities. 1 2 3 4 5

28 I have chances for advancement in my job. 1 2 3 4 5

29 I am always empowered to make decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

The value system of the organisation is clear,

30 disseminated and abided by. 1 2 3 4 5

18

View publication stats