The influence of employee performance appraisal cynicism on intent to quit and sportsmanship
| Published date | 23 September 2019 |
| Date | 23 September 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2017-0351 |
| Pages | 1-18 |
| Author | Michelle Brown,Maria L. Kraimer,Virginia K. Bratton |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
The influence of employee
performance appraisal
cynicism on intent to quit
and sportsmanship
Michelle Brown
Department of Management and Marketing,
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Maria L. Kraimer
School of Management and Labor Relations,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, and
Virginia K. Bratton
Jake Jabs College of Business and Entrepreneurship,
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Using job demands–resources ( JD–R) theory, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of
job demands (difficult performance appraisal (PA) objectives) and job resources (performance feedback and
leader member exchange (LMX)) on employee reports of PA cynicism. The paper also investigates the
consequences of PA cynicism on intent to quit and bad sportsmanship.
Design/methodology/approach –Survey data on PA demands and resources, PA cynicism and turnover
intentions were obtained from employees. Supervisors rated their employees’level of sportsmanship.
Findings –Contrary to the predictions of JD–R theory, the authors found that employees are most likely to
be cynical when they experience high levels of job resources (LMX and performance feedback) and high levels
of job demands (difficult objectives).
Research limitations/implications –The study demonstrates that PA cynicism matters –employees
with higher levels of PA cynicism were more likely to contemplate leaving the organization; employees with
high levels of PA cynicism are rated as bad sports by their supervisors.
Practical implications –Employeesare sensitiveto gaps between the descriptionand reality of aPA process
which can trigger thoughts of organizational exit and ineffective work behaviors. human resource managers
need to ensure that employees regard the PA processas valuable, useful and worth their time and effort.
Originality/value –The authors contribute to the PA literature by investigating the role of both job
resources and demands. PA research has focused on the specification of job demands, underplaying the role
of job resources in employee attitudes toward PA.
Keywords Performance management, Performance appraisal, Employee reactions
Paper type Research paper
Surveys demonstrate that performance appraisals (PAs) is a widely-used human resource
(HR) tool in organizations (Cascio, 2006; Nankervis and Compton, 2006; Liu et al., 2007). PA
is intended to communicate organizational performance expectations to employees and
promote employee accountability, which ultimately generates improvements in employee
performance (Murphy and Cleveland, 1991). However, employees do not always see the PA
process as valuable. People IQ (quoted in Elicker et al., 2006) reported that only 13 percent of
employees believe that their organization’s current PA process is useful. Holland (2006)
reported that only three in ten employees believe that their company’s performance review
system helped them improve their performance, while CEB (2016) reports that 59 percent of
employees feel performance reviews are not worth the time invested. One potential
explanation for this poor track record is that PA fails to motivate employees. Per job
Personnel Review
Vol. 49 No. 1, 2020
pp. 1-18
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-11-2017-0351
Received 20 November 2017
Revised 12 April 2018
Accepted 15 October 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1
The influence
of employee
PA cynicism
demands–resources ( JD–R) theory, low motivation is an indicator of cynicism (Demerouti
et al., 2001). When employees are cynical about the PA process they may feel anger,
frustration and disillusionment with the system (Taylor et al., 1995).
Consistent with the organizational cynicism literature (e.g. Abraham, 2000; Dean et al.,
1998), PA cynicism is defined as an employees’belief that the organization’s PA process
lacks integrity and is not very useful. We develop a conceptual model of PA cynicism is
grounded in JD–R theory. Because research has found a lack of job resources, rather than
job demands, to be more predictive of cynicism (Bakker et al., 2003), we focus on the
relationship between job resources and PA cynicism, moderated by job demands. Further,
following JD–R theory, we propose that PA cynicism mediates the relationship between the
interaction of job resources and job demands on two outcomes: turnover intentions and
extra-role behavior (see Figure 1 for an overview of the conceptual model).
The study makes three contributions to management research. First, we contribute to the
organizational cynicism literature by examining a new target of cynicism: the PA process.
By focusing on a specific target of cynicism, researchers can identify potential policy and
practices to manage employee cynicism. Second, we contribute to the PA literature by
investigating the role of both job resources and demands. PA research has focused on the
specification of job demands, underplaying the role of job resources in employee attitudes
toward PA. Finally, we contribute to JD–R theory by providing an empirical test of several
key tenets of the theory: that job resources have motivating potential (in the form of low
cynicism); that job resources are particularly motivating when job demands are high; and
that motivation mediates the effects of job resources and job demands on behavioral work
outcomes (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2014).
Job demands–resources theory and PA cynicism
Organizational cynicism is:
[…] a negative attitude toward one’s employing organization […] the core belief is that principles of
honesty, fairness and sincerity are sacrificed to further the self-interests of the leadership, leading
to actions based on hidden motives and deception. (Abraham, 2000, p. 269)
Cynical beliefs may result from inconsistency in management words and deeds (Dean et al., 1998;
Naus et al., 2007) or disappointment in the actions taken by the organization and its management
(Reichers et al., 1997). Cynicism is a learned response, rather than a personality-based
predisposition (Wanous et al., 2000), and is based on subjective evaluations stemming from
an employee’s employment experiences (Cole et al., 2006). Cynicism is an employee’s perception
of organizational activities and is “real in its consequences”(Cole et al., 2006, p. 464) irrespective
of the accuracy of perceptions.
Job resources
Performance feedback
LMX
Outcomes
Intent to quit
Bad sportsmanship
Performance appraisal
cynicism
Job demands
Difficult performance
objectives
Figure 1.
Conceptual model
of PA cynicism
2
PR
49,1
To continue reading
Request your trial