Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and

i

Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-

Role Performance and Retaliation: Testing a Moderated Mediated

Model in Public Sector of Pakistan

Researcher: Supervisor:

Sumaira Aslam Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan

REG NO. 46-FMS/PHDMGT/F12 Professor, FMS, IIUI

Co-Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Najeebullah

Chairperson, Department of Public

Administration, Fatima Jinnah Women

University, Rawalpindi.

Faculty of Management Sciences

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

ii

Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-

Role Performance and Retaliation: Testing a Moderated Mediated

Model in Public Sector of Pakistan

Sumaira Aslam

REG NO. 46-FMS/PHDMGT/F12

Submitted to fulfil the partial requirements for the

Doctoral degree with Management specialization

at the faculty of Management Sciences,

International Islamic University,

Islamabad.

Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan April, 2019

Dr. Najeebullah

iii

In the name of Allah, the most merciful and beneficent

iv

DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to my parents, beloved son, sweet sister and my

supervisor whose support has enabled me

to complete this research study successfully.

v

COPYRIGHTS

Copyright © 2019 by IIUI Student

All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form requires the prior

written permission of Ms. Sumaira Aslam or designated representative.

vi

DECLARATION

DATE: _April, 2019

I, Sumaira Aslam Daughter/Son of Muhammad Aslam certify that the

thesis entitled, “Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-Role

Performance and Retaliation: Testing a Moderated Mediated Model in Public Sector of

Pakistan”. Being handed over to the competent authority has not already been submitted

or published and shall not in future be submitted by me for obtaining any degree from

another university or institution.

I also confirm that this thesis is entirely my own work. It has not, in whole or in part,

been plagiarized from any published or unpublished source. Wherever the material has

been used from other sources, the same has been properly acknowledged.

It is also certified that I have followed all IIU requirements regarding writing, Compiling,

Typing, formatting and binding of this thesis.

Signature of Student: _______________________

Registration Number: 46-FMS/PHDMGT/F12

Name of Supervisor: Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan

1

APPRECIATION AND GRATITUDE

No words of gratitude will ever be sufficient for the Allah Almighty who made me

capable of learning, blessed me with the knowledge & intellect and facilitated me with

the finest of the mentors all through my academic years.

Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan, Professor and Vice President Academics, IIU Islamabad,

and Dr. Najeebullah, Chairman, Department of Public Administration, Gomel University,

who made me, realize that no matter how high you think of your work, there is always a

room for improvement. I present my deep gratitude to him, for being the most marvelous

and enduring supervisor.

I also appreciate Dr. Tasneem Fatima, Coordinator FMS, for her consistent

encouragement and continuous support especially in increasing my knowledge and other

faculty members especially Dr. Saima Naseer and Dr. Fouzia for supporting me.

Finally, to my parents, most wonderful parents of the world who grew me up to never

frantically fall upon a yearning other than knowledge and my truly adorable son, and my

sister for high moral support.

Ms. Sumaira Aslam

2

(Acceptance by the Viva Voice Committee)

Title of Thesis: “Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-Role


Pakistan”

.

Name of Student: Sumaira Aslam

Registration No:46-FMS/PhD-Mgt./F12

Accepted by the Faculty of Management Sciences INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC

UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate

of Philosophy Degree in Management Sciences with specialization in Human Resource

Management.

Viva Voce Committee

Dr. Muhammad Bashir Khan

(Supervisor)

Dr. Najeebullah

(Co-Supervisor)

3

_______________________

(External Examiner)

________________________

(Internal Examiner)

________________________

(Chairman HS & R)

________________________

(Dean)

Date:___________________

4

FORWARDING SHEET

The thesis entitled “Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and In-Role


Pakistan” submitted by Sumaira Aslam as partial fulfillment of PhD degree

in Management Sciences with specialization in Management, has completed under

my guidance and supervision. The changes advised by the external and the internal

examiners hava also been incorporated. I am satisfied with the quality of student’s

research work and allow her to submit this thesis for further process as per IIU rules &

regulations.

Date:_______________________ Signature:___________________

Name : ____________________

5

Abstract:

The study investigates the relationship among perceived failure of the performance

appraisal purposefulness, the injustice perceptions, in-role performance and retaliation in

Public sector of Pakistan. The overall injustice perception serves as mediator among the

performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation.

Whereas the study perceived organizational support tests as moderator between

performance appraisal purposefulness failure and Overall injustice perception. The study

gathered data using a self-administered questionnaire from 400 civil servants across 12

occupational groups appointed in major cities of Pakistan, from which 380 responses

seems to be valid with a 95% response rate. The study uses a time-lag design to collect

data at two different times (time 1 and time 2). The responses on in-role performance and

retaliation was reported by peers. Amos 20 and Process 3.0 were used for data analysis.

The results confirm a positive relationship between performance appraisal purposefulness

failure with retaliation but for in-role performance, a negative relationship was not found.

However overall injustice perception found to be positively related with in-role

performance and retaliation level. The results also show that overall injustice perception

partially mediates the relationship between the failure of performance appraisal

purposefulness and the in-role performance, but no mediation was found among

retaliation. The study also confirms the moderation of Perceived organizational support.

The research results have practical and practical significance for civil servants and public

6

organizations in the new geographical environment. This study is a rare attempt to test all

aspects of performance appraisal purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception

on the in-performance and retaliation.

Key words: Performance appraisal purposefulness failure, Injustice Perception, In-role

performance, Retaliation and Perceived organizational support.

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Chapter one: Introduction ................................................................................. - 18 -

Background of Study:................................................................................................ - 18 -

Gap Analysis: ............................................................................................................ - 26 -

Problem Statement: ................................................................................................... - 30 -

Research Questions: .................................................................................................. - 32 -

Research objectives: .................................................................................................. - 33 -

Significance of study: ................................................................................................ - 33 -

1.1.1 Theoretical significance: ......................................................................... - 33 -

1.1.2 Managerial Justification: ......................................................................... - 35 -

1.1.3 Contextual Justification: ......................................................................... - 36 -

Definition OF important Terms................................................................................. - 38 -

2. Chapter Two: Review of Literature....................................................................... 40

Relevant theory: ............................................................................................................ 40

2.1.1 Organizational Justice Theory: ................................................................... 40

8

2.1.2 Why justice is Important? ........................................................................... 42

2.1.3 Organizational Justice Verses Injustice ...................................................... 46

2.1.4 Overall injustice: ......................................................................................... 47

Applying organizational Justice Theory on Performance appraisal and its

purposefulness: .............................................................................................................. 52

2.1.5 Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and Organizational injustice

60

2.1.6 Facets of Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure .......................... 66

2.1.7 Outcomes of Organizational Justice / Injustice: ......................................... 71

Hypothesis Development .............................................................................................. 74

2.1.8 Administrative purposefulness failure and In-role Performance and

Retaliation:................................................................................................................. 74

2.1.9 Developmental Purposefulness failure and In-role performance and

Retaliation:................................................................................................................. 78

2.1.10 Strategic Purposes Failure and In-role Performance and Retaliation ......... 81

2.1.11 Role Definition Purposefulness failure and In-role performance and

Retaliation:................................................................................................................. 84

9

2.1.12 Administrative purposes failure and Injustice Perception: ......................... 86

2.1.13 Developmental purposes Failure and Injustice Perception: ........................ 88

2.1.14 Strategic Purposes Failure and Injustice Perception: .................................. 91

2.1.15 Role Definition Purposes Failure and Injustice Perception: ....................... 93

2.1.16 Injustice perception and in-role Performance and Retaliation .................... 96

2.1.17 Overall injustice perception as a mediator: ................................................. 97

2.1.18 Perceived organizational support as moderator: ....................................... 102

Theoretical Frame work: ............................................................................................. 107

3. Chapter three: Research Methodology................................................................ 108

Research Design: ......................................................................................................... 110

Population of Study: .................................................................................................... 111

Sample Size determination: ......................................................................................... 114

Sampling and Sampling Procedure: ............................................................................ 114

Instruments: ................................................................................................................. 116

10

3.1.1 Measurement of Perceived Performance appraisal purposefulness failure:

116

3.1.2 Perceived Administrative Purposefulness failure: .................................... 117

3.1.3 Perceived Developmental Purposefulness failure: .................................... 118

3.1.4 Perceived Role Definition Purposefulness failure: ................................... 118

3.1.5 Perceived Strategic Purposefulness failure: .............................................. 119

3.1.6 Overall Injustice perception of Performance appraisal: ............................ 119

3.1.7 In-role Performance: ................................................................................. 120

3.1.8 Retaliation: ................................................................................................ 120

3.1.9 Perceived Organizational Support (POS): ................................................ 121

Data Collection Techniques: ....................................................................................... 121

Reliability analysis: ..................................................................................................... 123

Data Analysis techniques: ........................................................................................... 124

4. Chapter Four: Data presentation and Analysis ............................................... 126

Demographic profile of the respondents: .................................................................... 126

11

Descriptive statistics for research variables ................................................................ 129

Correlation Analysis:................................................................................................... 130

Hypotheses testing: ..................................................................................................... 133

4.1.1 Pre SEM assumption ................................................................................. 133

4.1.2 Tests of Measurement Models: ................................................................. 134

4.1.3 Structural Model Analysis: ....................................................................... 144

Hypotheses Results: .................................................................................................... 177

5. Discussion and Analysis ........................................................................................ 181

5.1 Summary of finding: ............................................................................................. 181

5.1.1 Summary of Results of Reliability and Validity ....................................... 183

5.1.2 Hypothesis Testing: .................................................................................. 183

5.2 Study contribution to the current state of knowledge: .......................................... 192

5.3 Practical Implications ............................................................................................ 194

5.4 Study Limitations: ................................................................................................. 195

5.5 Future Research Implications ................................................................................ 196

12

5.6 Conclusion:............................................................................................................ 197

6. Reference ................................................................................................................ 198

7. Appendices ............................................................................................................. 212

Appendix-A: Tables .................................................................................................... 212

Appendix-B: Figures ................................................................................................... 219

APPENDIX-C: Questionnaire ................................................................................. 225

13

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Theoretical framework 108

FIGURE 2: Threshold values for model fit indices 126

FIGURE 3: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 140

FIGURE 4: Path model showing the relationship between administrative purposefulness

failure and in-role performance and retaliation 147

FIGURE 5: Path model showing the relationship between developmental purposefulness


FIGURE 6: Path model showing the relationship between strategic purposefulness


FIGURE 7: Path model showing the relationship between role definition purposefulness

failure and in-role performance and retaliation. 154

FIGURE 8: Path model showing the performance appraisal purposefulness failure as

second order construct and its relationship with in-role performance and retaliation.

156

FIGURE 9: Path diagram showing the relationship between perceived administrative

purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception 159

FIGURE 10: path diagram showing the relationship between perceived developmental


FIGURE 11: Path diagram showing the relationship between perceived strategic


FIGURE 12: Path diagram showing the relationship between perceived role definition


14

FIGURE 13: Path diagram showing the relationship between perceived role definition


FIGURE 14: Path diagram showing the relationship between overall injustice perception

and in-role performance and retaliation 165

FIGURE 15: Path diagram showing mediation of overall injustice perception on the

relation between administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition

purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation 169

FIGURE 16: Moderated effects of perceived organizational support between the

relationship of perceived administrative purposefulness failure and overall injustice

percption 219


relationship of perceived istrative developmental purposefulness failure and overall

injustice percption 220


relationship of perceived strategic purposefulness failure and overall injustice

percption 221


relationship of perceived role definition purposefulness failure and overall injustice

percption 222

FIGURE 20: Plots showing homoscedasticity of data for retaliation 222

FIGURE 21: Plots showing homoscedasticity of data for in-role performance 224

15

List of Tables:

TABLE-1: Year wise allocation of civil servants to different occupational group /

services, 2007-2013 113

TABLE 2: Cronbach’s alpha (α) 124

TABLE 3: Gender detail of respondents 127

TABLE 4: Age detail of respondents 127

TABLE 5: Table representing the proportionate of occupational groups 128

TABLE 6: Qualification details of respondents 128

TABLE 7: Total experience and current job experience 129

TABLE 8: Results for descriptive statistics and correlation matrix 132

TABLE 9: Reliability and validity measures for sub-sample. 137

TABLE 10: Results of CFA 139

TABLE 11: Factor loading during CFA 140

TABLE 12: Results showing the relationship between administrative purposefulness


TABLE 13: Results showing the relationship between developmental purposefulness


TABLE 14: Results showing the relationship between strategic purposefulness failure

and in-role performance and retaliation 150

TABLE 15: Results showing the relationship between role definition purposefulness


16

TABLE 16: Results showing the relationship between all facets of performance appraisal

purposefulness failure as a second order construct and in-role performance and

retaliation 154

TABLE 17: Relationship between ivs and mediator (OIP) 158

TABLE 18: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived

administrative purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 159

TABLE 19: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived

developmental purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 160

TABLE 20: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived strategic

purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 161

TABLE 21: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived role

definition purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 162

TABLE 22: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for perceived role

definition purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses 163

TABLE 23: Model consistency and goodness of fit measures for overall injustice

perception and in-role performance and retaliation 164

TABLE 24: Summary of regression results for direct hypothesis 166

TABLE 25: Summary of model fit for mediation analysis 168

TABLE 26: Regression weights: structural model for testing mediation 171

TABLE 27: Bootstrapping results - mediation analysis of the effect of developmental

purposefulness failure on in-role performance and retaliation through overall

injustice perception 172

17

TABLE 28: Results for main effects and moderated regression analysis for perceived

overall injustice perception 212







TABLE 32: Assessment of normality 216

- 18 -

1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF STUDY:

Performance appraisal purposefulness failure occurs when an organization fails to

achieve the innate purposefulness of performance appraisal. Performance appraisals are

normally executed to achieve multiple purposes in organizations, containing

“administrative (i.e. pay rise, promotion), developmental, feedback and personnel

research (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998; Abu-Doleh & Weir, 2007), improve

performance of employees and work efficiency (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991, 2003),

employee development to improve the skills (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007;

Bosswell & Boudreau, 2002). Boswell and colleague in (2000) believe that PA is aimed

for administrative decision-making (salary, termination / retention, promotion, layoffs)

and development decision, such as (training the employees, providing performance

feedback on regular basis, employee transfer, influential employee strengths and

weaknesses).

In a recent research, (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; Iqbal., 2012) explained the

importance of distinguishing the various purposes of performance appraisal due to having

greater implications for human resource development literature, helpful for mangers to

take adequate decision about employee development, rewards and training and gives

clarity to link the appraisal decisions with employee administrative and developmental

purposes. There are several other reasons identified by (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams,

- 19 -

1989) to distinguish different purposes of performance appraisal like first, the appraisal

purposes influence both processes and outcomes of performance appraisal so the

performance ratings received in lieu of various purposes might be different from that

meant for a particular purpose. Second, it is evident that accuracy in differentiating

individuals is independent of accuracy at large in differentiating a person's strong point

from weaknesses third, rater interviews suggest that in presence of multiple purposes,

they judge the individual for every single purpose which helps the rater to fill out the

formal performance appraisal forms suggesting the utmost significant purpose over all

other.

Prior studies theorizes and distinguishes several purposes of performance appraisal e.g.

between-individuals, within-individual, systems maintenance, and documentation

(Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989); developmental and evaluation purposes

(McCarthy, & Garavan, 2001); documentation, administration, subordinate expression, and

development purposes (Milliman, Nason, Zhu, & De Cieri, 2002); administrative,

developmental and role definition purposes (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007;

Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, Effectiveness of

Performance Appraisal: An Integrated Framework, 2014); evaluation, as short-term and

communication development, as long-term (Chiang & Birtch, 2010) administrative,

developmental, strategic and role definition purposes (Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014;

Iqbal M. Z., 2012). However, it is empirically evident from previous literature that

administrative and developmental purposes remained the focus of research (Iqbal, Akbar,

& Budhwar, 2014; Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; Abu-Doleh & Weir, 2007; DeNisi

- 20 -

& Gonzalez, 2000). The recent volatile business conditions foster researchers and

practitioners to openly understand the repetitively changing goals and objectives of

organizations (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). Particularly in Pakistani context,

(Khan, 2009) realized that the strategic purpose of performance appraisal requires the

wider level of awareness and far-sighted companies are setting performance appraisal to

take a competitive advantage of this orientation.

The performance appraisal purposes may fail due to several problems such as Battaglio,

2015; Kellough, 2012; Armstrong, 2010 and Lin and Kellough, 2018 studied the causes of appraisal

failure at supervisor end e.g. Poor performance standards such as (in-effective tools for

rating, poor relations with superior, minimum accuracy of performance information at the

senior level, irregular performance feedback, desperate negativity / subordinate’s

perceptions, political performance reviews, little emphasis on management’s

developmental activities, weaker relation with reward system, exceptional shortage of

rater’s motivation to rate the ratee and few rating skills in raters, Structural inconsistency

in the performance review processes). Tee, Ramis, Fernandez, & Paulsen, (2017)

gathered the responses of 112 Malaysians through a cross-sectional survey revealed

that followers' perceptions of leadership unfavorably correlated with their anger,

which in turn involved the intentions of collective action. Palaiologos, Papazekos, &

Panayotopoulou, (2011) identified some problems in appraisal systems particularly in

context of purposefulness of performance appraisal required to fulfill, the administration

system in which performance appraisal is inserted, and the processes and practices that

develop the performance appraisal system. Additionally, the system of performance

- 21 -

appraisal may be blamed for having poor criteria of evaluation and for the use of

inappropriate appraisal techniques. There may be several other reason that might result in

performance appraisal failure including biasness, inaccuracy and non-acceptance by the

employee, resultantly performance appraisal may fail to give the desired performance

output and therefore increased level of dissatisfaction, demotivation and conflicts

particularly on employee’s side. Giangreco, et al, (2012), argued that this is due to either

inclusion of erroneous contents in evaluation, unfair evaluation processes, mismatch

among individual’s needs and the purposes of appraisal or might be due to the lack of

clarity and independency in performance dimensions. Therefore, to achieve an

effective performance appraisal system, only the instrumental validity of performance

appraisal is insufficient, but how employees are reacting toward such system is also very

important. Certainly, with feelings of dissatisfaction and unfairness perceptions in the

appraisal process, the particular appraisal system will be ruined or lost (Ikramullah, et al.,

2012; Basavanthapa, 2003).

The perceptual injustice is a renowned concept in business research and considered vital

for the organizations (Ambrose, 2002). Existing literature on justice and fairness

discusses it in two main streams e.g. event (forms justice perception about an event like

performance appraisal) and entity perspective tended to form aggregate justice perception

in response to multiple events toward manager or organization (Colquitt, Zipayb, Lynchc,

& Outlaw, 2018; Colquitt & Zipay, 2015). Although there is a bulk of literature

discussing justice from event or entity perspective (Colquitt et al., 2013), but it ignored

- 22 -

justice perspective of the perceiver (Colquitt, Zipayb, Lynchc, & Outlaw, 2018) As

literature views Justice as a subjective phenomenon and lies “in the eye of the beholder”

(Konow, 2009).

Extensive literature suggests that justice / injustice perception is an important criterion

to achieve performance appraisal purposes effectively. (Jawahar, 2007) found that

ratees’ perceptions of fairness and reaction to appraisal process lead towards the

successful implementation of appraisal systems. Research is evident that the higher

fairness perceptions of performance appraisal will lead to the greater trust level and

improved appraisal system satisfaction (Harrington & Lee, 2015; Mani, 2002; Gabris &

Ihrke, 2000; Masterson, et al., 2000; Roberts & Pavlak, 1996). Whereas injustice

perceptions adversely effects the different work behaviors (Ambrose, Seabright, &

Schminke, 2002). Similarly, according to Scheuerman, Hegtvedt, & Johnson, (2017)

injustice perceptions depend on the individual’s sense making process to understand

why and how such perceptions are built upon. They draw from the attribution of blame

model of justice judgments, examining how the working groups in two different

positions understand the treatments and outcomes resulting from their interaction and

the baseless blame factors nurtures negative reactions like counterproductive behavior or

retaliation. In public sector organizations, fairness perceptions of performance appraisal

is a critical concern for the proper implementation of human resource, which is

considered to be from the more complexed and debatable in public sector organizations

(Harrington & Lee, 2015); (Kim & Rubianty, 2011; Roberts G. E., 2003). The felt

dissatisfaction, injustice in processes and discrimination in appraisals may cause failure

- 23 -

in any performance appraisal system (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994; Scheuerman, Hegtvedt,

& Johnson, 2017; Sholihin & Pike, 2009). In other words, the process of performance

appraisal can convert into a cause of high dissatisfaction once workers consider

biasness, politics or irrelevancy in appraisal process. (Rupp, Shapiro, Folger, Skarlicki,

& Shao, 2017).

This study also examines Perceived organizational support (POS) as the moderator

between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perception because it

can mitigate the negative effects on outcome variables. Organizational support theory

suggests that employees pay attention to treatment offered by the organization in order to

discern the extent to which the organization is supportive and values their contributions

(Kurtessis, et al., 2015). To this end, employees infer that the treatment offered to them

by agents of the organization is indicative of organization’s overall favorable or

unfavorable orientation towards them (Kurtessis, et al., 2015). Perceived organizational

support develops by meeting employees’ socioemotional needs and showing readiness to

reward employees’ extra efforts and to give help that would be needed by employees to

do their jobs better (Kurtessis, et al., 2015). Employees who perceive that the

organization is supportive of them and committed to helping meet their socioemotional

and tangible needs will reciprocate by helping the organization achieve its goals

(Parzefall & Salin 2010). A large body of evidence indicates that employees with high

levels of POS judge their jobs more favorably (e.g., increased job satisfaction, more

positive mood and reduced stress) and are more invested in their organization (e.g.,

increased effective organizational commitment, increased performance and reduced

- 24 -

turnover; see review by Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Studies

have found that employees with high POS suffer less stress at work and are more inclined

to return to work sooner after injury (Shaw et al., 2013).

Previous literature also highlights that the employees with low levels of POS judge their

jobs more unfavorably e.g. Ko & Hur, (2014) reported that employees experiencing

procedural injustice might feel dissatisfaction in spite of favorable benefits. Schlkwyket

al. (2011) suggest that POS moderates in the relationship between experiences of

bullying by superiors and turnover intention. Ajay K. Jain Sabir I. Giga Cary L. Cooper,

(2013), In sum, POS is seen as leading to increased individual resources in the way of

energy and possibly time, leading to reduced stress and improved health behaviors and

ultimately improved health. Moreover, employees try to balance their attitude toward the

organization based on employees' expectations that are not met by organizations, (Probst,

Petitta, Barbaranell, & Austin, (2018) reported the Elangovan & Shapiro’s betrayal

perspective presented in (1998) to understand the influence of negative events on

employee bеhaviours and how perceived organizational support might reduce the

negative consequences like possible threats in relationship between performance

appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perception. BAL, Chiaburu, and Jansen

(2010) considered the betrayal perspective as the inconsistency of expectations in social

relationships, i.e., the worker expects the organization to play a supporting role but the

organization does not meet his/her expectations. Thus, we expect perceived

organizational support to be a contextual factor that moderates the relationship between

performance appraisal failure and injustice perception such that the positive relationship

- 25 -

between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perception is

minimized when POS is high.

In the light of above, discussion the study proposes that performance appraisal

purposefulness failure may influence the overall injustice perceptions of employees. Nair

and Saleh (2015) argued that if the users of performance appraisal perceive it as

unapproved or distorted and unable to fulfil its objectives they feel injustice. The

performance appraisal related injustice perceptions might negatively cause the

performance of employee at workplace (Bilal, Rafi, & Khalid, 2017). Reseach shows that

Injustice generally leads negative emotions that occur in response to automotive reactions

like retaliation and lower in-role performance. Prior literature recommended that

individuals not only show dissatisfaction against injustice; but also respond in some or other

way. Therefore, it may be concluded that justice violations might escalate the victim’s desire

to punish the offender or retaliation. Retaliation costs to organization and might lead to

many unwanted outcomes (e.g., Thau & Mitchell, 2010; Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010).

Research also evident that perceived organizational support might mitigate the effects of

performance appraisal failure on injustice perceptions. Grote in 1996 discussed that

generally, individuals support the basic concept behind Performance appraisal purposes,

despite of having concerns for the procedures and applicability of performance appraisal

results by supervisors. Therefore, this research is aimed to investigate the relationship

between performance appraisal failure and in-role performance and retaliation with the

mediating effects of overall injustice perception. The research also introduces POS as

potential moderator in the relationship of performance appraisal purposefulness failure

- 26 -

and overall injustice perceptions of employee in context of performance appraisal in

public organizations.

GAP ANALYSIS:

The previous studies evaluated the effects of performance appraisal purposefulness on

organizational outcomes e.g. Administrative purposes effect on organizational

commitment (Cheng S. Y., 2014); administrative and developmental purposes with

satisfaction of rater, ratee and feedback (Palaiologos, Papazekos, & Panayotopoulou,

2011); influences of administrative purposes, developmental purposes and role

definition purposes on satisfaction with the performance appraisal, job satisfaction, role

ambiguity, and affective commitment (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). But there are

few and patchy empirical researches about the influences of the performance appraisals

purposes failure on significant organizational results (Iqbal, Akbar, Budhwar, & Shah,

2019; DeNisi & Murphy, 2017; Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014, 2015; Landy & Farr,

1980). Such as impact of low quality, PA experiences on organizational commitment

(Brown et al. 2010). Moreover, there is a call for research in literature on the usage of an

effective criterion that helps to achieve the appraisal purposes, that explains the reasons

about the implementation of performance appraisals (Iqbal., 2012). Many researcher

have discussed the consequences of failure of performance appraisal purposes on

attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of employee but no or few have studied this so far.

However, the failure of performance appraisal purposes have not been studied earlier

- 27 -

with in-role performance and retaliation. Moreover, the initial focus of previous research

was on its two dimensions, administrative and developmental purposes of performance

appraisal (Selvarajan & Cloninger, 2008; Zimmerman, Mount, & Goff, 2008). Whereas, the

other two namely role-definition and strategic purposes remained relatively untouched

(Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; (Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014). Therefore, there is

few or no empirical research, which has inventoried all the four types of performance

appraisal purposefulness failure at one place. Therefore, this research not only inclined

to study the impact of performance appraisal purposefulness failure on in-role

performance and retaliation, two important organizational consequences but also aimed

to examine all the four types of performance appraisal purposes failure at the same time.

The study assesses the perceived organizational support (POS) as moderator between the

purposefulness failure of performance appraisal and overall injustice perceptions. Several

studies evaluated the POS ie the relationship between perceived job autonomy and

turnover intention was moderated by POS (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2013). Supervisory

perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) serves as moderator between the LMX, job

satisfaction, and job performance (Erdogan & Enders, 2007). Perceived organizational

Support was tested as moderator by Jain, Giga, and Cooper, (2013) between

Organizational Stressors and Organizational Citizenship bеhaviour. Perceived

Organizational Support plays a moderating role between the relationship of Emotional

Labor / Outcome Relations (Duke, Goodman, Treadway, & Breland, 2009). The

moderating effects of POS between organizational justice and objective measurement of

cardiovascular health (Rineer, Truxillo, Bodner, Hammer, & Kraner, 2017) but fails to

- 28 -

measure perceived organizational support as moderator between Performance appraisal

purposefulness’ failure, and overall injustice perceptions in context of performance

appraisal.

Since PA needs to measure the work performance of employees (Murphy &Cleveland

1995), so whether or not the appraisal is perceived as fair or unfair is critical with respect

to its successful implementation. Although there is abundant literature tested the

organizational justice and injustice perceptions as mediator among different

organizational variables like Mediation of organizational justice between HR practices

and workplace outcomes (Zhang & Agarwal, 2009); Justice as mediator between

administrative purposes and organizational commitment (Cheng S. Y., 2014); the

relationship between pay for performance and job satisfaction is mediated by the

interactional justice (Ismail et al., 2011); Organizational Justice as a Mediator of the

Relationships Between Leader-Member Exchange and Employees' Turnover Intentions

(Lee, Murrmann, Murrmann, & Kim, 2010), but little or no research has attempted to

examine the mediating effects of injustice perception between performance appraisal

purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation.

Moreover, there is bulk literature on discussing the dimensionality of organizational

justice e.g. (Greenberg J. , 1986; Erdogan, 2002; Colquitt J. , 2001; Colquitt & Shaw,

2005; Colquitt, et al., 2012; Colquitt, et al., 2013; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,

2000; Simons & Roberson, 2003) but this study has examined the overall injustice as

mediator. Ambrose M. L. in (2009a) and Ambrose & Schminke, (2009b) emphasized on

- 29 -

the use of overall justice / injustice perceptions because the focus on its single

dimensionality might not produce the intensity and richness of individual’s justice

experiences. Similarly, a shift in research attention from singular dimensionality to

overall justice judgments may give comprehensive considerations of justice in

organizational context (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Lind & van den Bos, 2002;

Hauenstein, et al., 2001; Lind E. A., 2001a; Lind E. A., 2001b;). So this research will

consider the overall justice/injustice perceptions of employees. Justice helps employees

to be respective and trustworthy towards their organization even when the prevailing

circumstances do not favour them (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). Previous research on

organizational justice is also evident of use of different dimensions as a mediator among

different attitudes and behaviors such as (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Lind E. A., 2001a;

Colquitt & Shaw, 2005) However, researcher found only one study conducted by (Ambrose

& Schminke, 2009b), who have examined overall justice/injustice as mediator. It is

generally known that the lack of justice is more likely to be problematic for

organizations. The literature is strongly evident that injustice may foster workplace

retaliation, lower employee performance, and damage worker’s morale (Ambrose, Wo, &

Griffith, 2015; Colquitt, et al., 2013; Harrington & Lee, 2015). Due to immense

importance of both sides of justice at workplace, (Colquitt, et al., 2013) in a meta-

analysis, emphasis the need of further research on justice to affective outcomes (such

as retaliation and performance). Therefore, to fill this gap in literature, this research

offers a theoretical reflection on the importance of the injustice at work as a mediating

- 30 -

variable in explaining the relationship between performance appraisal purposes failure

and the poor task performance and increased retaliation at workplace.

Probst, Petitta, Barbaranell, & Austin, (2018) tested the perceived organizational and

supervisor support as moderator on the relationship of job insecurity and moral

disengagement. Djurkovic et al. (2008) have examined POS as a moderator of the

relationship between workplace bullying and intention to leave, and they have advocated

for more studies examining the joint effects of workplace stressors and POS on various

work outcomes that are important to organizations. Performance appraisal purposefulness

serves as stressor and change the extends the negative justice perception of individual

regarding the distribution of rewards. POS however, may moderate this relationship.

Therefore, this study explored the moderating effects of perceived organizational support

on the relationship between performance appraisal purposes failure and injustice

perceptions, which are not previously examined to the researcher’s best knowledge.

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

Previous literature on performance appraisal has largely emphasized on effectiveness of

performance appraisal (Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014; 2015). An effective Performance

appraisal significantly and positively effects the employee as well as organizational

performance. Moreover, it develops the employees understanding and acceptance of

appraisal related norms in organization (Lin & Kellough, 2018). Performance appraisal as

an essential part of performance management plays a key role in public sector reforms

- 31 -

widely spread in several Western and non-western countries (Pollitt

& Bouckaert, 2017). Performance appraisal is still a key problem in the case of Public

sector organizations (Harrington & Lee, 2015; Kim & Holzer, 2015; McEvoy, 1990). For

instance, (Prowse & Prowse, 2009) studied the aims and methods of performance

appraisal, and the problems faced by the appraisal process. He concluded that even with

the presence of greater criticism and evidences, the opponents cannot suggest a good

alternative for appraisal process which can deliver appropriate feedback, improve

motivational level, recognize training requirements and possible evidences to rationalize

latent career development and reward justification ((Prowse & Prowse, 2009). The

absence of identical acceptance of the performance appraisal purposes leads towards

higher levels of dissatisfaction mainly in Asian societies, where the usage of performance

appraisal is very restricted (Cheng & Cascio, 2009). Performance appraisal fairness is a

critical issue in theory and practice (Rusli &Sopian, 2013) because performance appraisal

is linked with rewards, promotions and many other incentives distributed to employees

particularly in public sector organizations. Despite of substantial benefits of performance

appraisals, the little practices of performance appraisal left it under-utilized in some

organizations. Literature reports that both raters and ratees supports its usage (Kim &

Holzer, 2014; Kim & Rubianty, 2011). Prior literature is evident of a decreased level of

confidence in the effectiveness, veracity, and justice of public performance appraisal

(Kim & Holzer, 2014; Kellough & Nigro, 2002; Gaertner & Gaertner, 1985). For

instance, Kunreuther in (2009) described the few important adverse attitudes and

bеhaviours towards the prevailing performance appraisal practices in public sector

- 32 -

organizations. The research concludes that public sector employees are more tended to

develop injustice perceptions towards their jobs and performance appraisal decisions

(Aslam, Arfeen, Mohti, & Rahman, 2015; Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002).

Therefore, this research is inclined to address this problem by studying the effects of

failure of performance appraisal purposes on employee feelings of injustice and its

consequent influences of in-role performance and retaliation behavior. Second, the study

supposed to test the mediating role of an injustice perception in the relationship between

performance appraisal purposes failure and in-role behavior and retaliation. Thirdly, the

research is inclined to analyze the moderating role of POS in the relationship between

performance appraisal purposes failure and perceived injustice.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

➢ Does the perceived performance appraisal purposes (administrative,

developmental, strategic and role definition) failure cause Injustice perception?

➢ Does injustice perception mediate the relationship between different facets of

appraisal purposefulness failure and dependent variables (e.g. in-role performance

and retaliation)?

➢ Is there a relationship in injustice perceptions and in-role performance and

retaliation?

- 33 -

➢ Does Perceived organizational support as moderator influence the relationship

among determinants of perceived performance appraisal purposes (administrative,

developmental, strategic and role definition) failure and injustice perceptions?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

The particular research objectives are as follows:

➢ To study the impact of performance appraisal purposefulness failure and its

effects on injustice perception.

➢ To examine the negative consequences of failure of different performance

appraisal purposes (e.g. administrative, developmental, strategic and role

definition).

➢ To understand how injustice perceptions effects in-role performance and

retaliation in case of perceived failure in the achievement of performance

appraisal purposes.

➢ To investigate the moderating role of POS between performance appraisal

purposefulness failure and injustice perceptions.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:

1.1.1 Theoretical significance:

- 34 -

Though the appraisals are important facts of organizational life, but still is not wholly

conceptualized and valued in all of its forms i.e. appraisals, appraising and appraisal

systems (Abu-Doleh & Weir, 2007). Similarly, (Ferris, Munyon, Basik, & Buckley,

2008), stated that an investigation of complex settings of appraisal will allow us to well

understand its challenges. A perceived failure in Performance appraisal purposefulness,

which is from the basic criterion of the effectiveness of performance appraisal intensely

influence the employee justice perception and causes a poor performance and retaliatory

behavior. Despite having extensive researches in all three fields e.g. performance

appraisal, injustice perception, and employee behaviors, not much has been explored to

integrate these and try to find the potential relationship between this variable, which is

the intention of this study. (Rosen, Chang, Johnson, & Levy, 2009) stressed on the

exploration of recent emergence of numerous similar notions like “organizational justice”

overall perceptions of justice (Colquitt, Zipayb, Lynchc, & Outlaw, 2018) and argued

that all above notions put emphasis on understanding the nature of mutual relationships

among individuals and organizations. Moreover, according to (Viswesvaran & Ones,

2002), the changing facets of employment contract and contemporary changes in work

settings has underpinned the managerial debates of justice. Additionally, this study

contributes to current literature in four ways.

First, the study uses organizational justice theory (greeberg, 1986) with an emphasis of

overall justice (Colquitt, Zipayb, Lynchc, & Outlaw, 2018; Ambrose, Wo, & Griffith,

2015) to explain the theoretical model, which incorporates performance appraisal,

injustice and employee behaviors (in-role performance and retaliation). Bulk of literature

- 35 -

studied the dimensionality of justice but there is lack of empirical research applying the

overall justice theory in the organizational context particularly to deal with performance

appraisal related problems and negative behavioral outcomes.

Second, the study advances performance appraisal research by introducing the overall

injustice as a mediator between performance appraisal purposefulness failure in-role

performance and retaliation. As (Guest, 2004) stress on finding the fresh theoretical

premise to define and examine the employment relations in the different setting.

Third, performance appraisal purposefulness is an important contextual factor and need to

be study for an effective performance appraisal system (Levy & Williams, 2004; Murphy &

DeNisi, 2008), were included in model to see the influences of failure of performance appraisal

purposes on important organizational outcomes. Very little known about the important

structural and psychosomatic causes that change the fairness / unfairness perception of

employee performance evaluation, particularly in public sector organizations (Harrington

& Lee, 2015). Concerning to the rising employment problems, this investigation will

further shape our acceptance of various exchange procedures carried out in organizational

settings in the current employment relationship.

Fourth, the study measures the moderating effects of perceived organizational support

among performance appraisal purposefulness failure, and overall injustice perception,

which lacks considerable previous research.

1.1.2 Managerial Justification:

- 36 -

Because the PA purposes are from the important causes that influences its main

characteristics and rating quality, this research implies the practical insights for

professionals by including frequent suggestions to advance criteria for performance rating

and its measurement (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). Importantly the study serves

the need of different managerial positions who are responsible to appraise the ratee or be

appraised in particular. As literature suggested that performance appraisal purposefulness

failure has significant effects on the criteria of rating and its quality; this research will

assist the managers to enhance the performance appraisals characteristics and quality of

its rating criteria in the public firms. The study will disclose the innate weaknesses of

performance appraisal system currently in practice in civil service of Pakistan and help

civil servants to understand the real phenomenon behind the negative behaviors of

employees. The study will further suggest that good supervisory relation with an

employee has a potential to decrease the effects of negative behavior toward workplace

and emphasis to advance effective measures for appraising the performance grades beside

conventional principles.

1.1.3 Contextual Justification:

There is limited empirical research on performance appraisals, justice perception, and

particularly in the public sector (Harrington & Lee, 2015); (Kim & Rubianty, 2011).

Nearly the most of existing research on performance appraisal and injustice perception

research is conducted in a western context, illuminating a lack of studies in the non-

Western countries. Skarlicki (2001) argued that presuming the recent perspective of

- 37 -

universal fairness, researchers overlook the inherent differences in cultures of different

countries. The cross-cultural studies on organizational injustice are important due to

theoretical, cognitive and practical aspects as culture enhances our theoretical

understanding of the way people give meanings to different events and express the

appropriate behaviors (Skarlicki, 2001) , how they perceive the justice in different

cultures may enhance our understanding of culture itself (Greenberg, 1996) and will also

help the researchers and managers to find the determinants and outcomes of justice

perception (Skarlicki, 2001). The research is important because of increased

disappointment and dissatisfaction of employees from prevailing performance appraisal.

This has motivated experts and human resources managers to measure the influence of

performance evaluation systems for employees and, finally, the performance of the

organization (Long, Kowang, Khairuzzaman, Ismail & Rasid, 2013).

Therefore, more research is needed in different countries with different cultural

backgrounds, especially in Asia. The organizational setting and beliefs of people in

collectivist cultures like Pakistan are bluntly dissimilar from that normal institute in a

Western perspective and characterized to have excessive relational and encouragement

requirements (Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004). As collectivist cultures have greater respect

for hierarchy and emphasized in personal relations; managing style is usually

paternalistic and people symbolically view organizations as a family representative

(Aycan, 2001). Thus, an investigation of the advent and operationalization of justice

- 38 -

procedures in collectivist cultures will improve our acceptance of the motivational

foundations of attitudes and behaviors of employees at work in a modest economy.

DEFINITION OF IMPORTANT TERMS

The following terms are relevant to this research.

Performance appraisal—is a mechanism designed to evaluate the competence in terms

of knowledge skills and abilities of public officers in comparison to the assigned tasks

(Oettmeier & Kenney, 2001).

Perceived Performance appraisal purposefulness failure— the user’s perceptual

discontentment from performance appraisal purposes with their available choices is

denoted as performance appraisal purposefulness failure.

Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure—Perceptual failure in meeting the

user’s expectations about salary; promotion; retention; performance standards; layoffs;

and procedures opted for the identification poor performance.

Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure—Perceptual failure in meeting the

user’s expectations about identification of individuals’ training needs; performance

feedback; determination of transfers and assignments; and identification of individuals’

strengths and weaknesses.

Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure—Perceptual failure in meeting the user’s

expectations about personnel planning, determine organizational training needs, evaluate

goal achievement, assist in goal identification, evaluate personnel systems, reinforce

authority structure, identification of organization’s development needs.

- 39 -

Perceived Role definition purposefulness failure— Perceptual failure in meeting the

user’s expectations about criteria for validation research, document personnel decisions,

meeting legal requirements.

Overall Injustice perception—overall perceptions of injustice as work stressor

undermine individuals’ psychological and physical functioning (Cropanzano et al. 2005).

In-role performance— execution of the basic job duties or core task behavior (Zhu,

2013).

Retaliation—felt need to punish and make a firm pay for what has happened (Market

Lett, 2006).

Civil Servant—Public servant or a member of civil service

Ratee—the subordinate who is evaluated

Rater—a supervisory officer completing a performance appraisal.

40

2. CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

RELEVANT THEORY:

This study discusses organizational justice theory as an overarching theory as it is one of

the most salient concerns from numerous issues considered important for employees in

organizational context. Justice reveals the perceived observance to organizational rules,

which characterize relevance in decision-making process (e.g., equity, consistency,

respect, truthfulness). This study first review the organizational justice theory, and then it

summarize empirical work on organizational justice in context of performance appraisal

and its purposefulness failure. Then the hypothesis are developed using mainly

organizational justice theory as an overarching theory, and the study will use two sub

theories e.g. the taxonomy of fairness perception (Greenberg, 1993) and fairness theory

(Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) due to its importance for the study in explaining the

relationships. Finally, this chapter presents theoretical framework.

2.1.1 Organizational Justice Theory:

During the last 10 years,the theory of organizational justice has emerged as a

fundamental concept and main research concern in the fields of industrial and

organizational psychology (Greenberg, 1990a, b). Organizational Justice is essentially the

perception of justice and its reaction toward such perceptions within the organizational

setting (Greenberg, 1987). According to Colquitt, (2001) the meaning of fairness or

41

justice derived from previous research link the objective aspects of organizational decision

making to the subjective perceptions of fairness. Organizational justice theory serves as

basis for theorizing the individual’s perceptions regarding the fairness of treatment he /

she received from supervisor or organization. The theory of organizational justice has

been developed gradually, and the debate on the dimensions of perceptions of justice and

their interrelationships has a substantive history. In a recent meta-analysis Colquitt,

(2001) identified three justice research streams. (a) Justice research focus on issues

related to construct discrimination for example how much different justice constructs

distinctive from each other?, (b) the Greenberg’s “proactive research” (1987b) can be

explained as the research dedicated on the creation of fairness perceptions, (c) is the

Greenberg’s “reactive research” (1987b) which emphasis on understanding the

individual’s reaction towards fairness or unfairness.

With the development of organizational justice theory, researchers and scholars have

classify organizational justice perceptions into different categories including distributive

justice (Leventhal, 1976; Homans, 1961), which discusses to the degree of fairness the

outcomes contains. Second is procedural justice as explained by (Thibaut & Walker,

1975), concerned with the fairness of processes used to assign the outcomes. Third is

interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986), discusses the interpersonal dealing that

one receives during the promulgation of organizational procedures. Greenberg (1986)

established a two-factor model of justice that consists of Distributive Justice

(favourability of results) and Procedural justice components through factor analysis of the

42

qualitative investigation of the fairness of performance evaluation. He defines Procedural

Justice as the extent to which the process is considered fair and distributive Justice as a

fair result or outcomes. Subsequently, Procedural Justice is divided into interpersonal

components and System Components (Moorman, 1991).

However, Recently, Colquitt and colleagues (2018) called for a re-examination of the three-

faceted model of judicial cognition. They proposed a four-sided model of justice perceptions,

including “Distributive Justice”, “Procedural Justice”, “Interpersonal Justice”, and

“informational justice” (Colquitt et al. 2012; Colquitt, 2001). In meta-analysis and factor

analysis studies, Colquitt and his colleagues conclude that the Distributive, Procedural,

Interpersonal, and Informational dimensions of justice are distinct structures that are related to

different outcomes.

2.1.2 Why justice is Important?

Various reasons for the importance of justice research has been identified by different

scholars (Crawshaw, et al., 2013; Ambrose, 2002; Greenberg, 2001a; Cropanzano, Byrne

et al., 2001). Prior research differentiate the three reasons for justice, first is instrumental

causes, second is relationship causes and third is accountability causes (Fortin, 2008;

Cropanzano, Byrne et al., 2001; Cropanzano, et al., 2001). Cropanzano et al., in (2001a)

discussed these three aspects under the assumptions of content Theory and argued that

they are not mutually exclusive; for some people, it is instrumental, for others it is

relational and the remaining might consider it for accountability reasons (Cropanzano,

Rupp et al. 2001).

43

2.1.2.1 Instrumental model:

Instrumental model raises personal concerns about fairness because it offers mechanisms

to control and ensure the predictability and profitability of their results and rewards

Cropanzano, et al. (2001) reported that employees are more concerned for fairness due to

“self-interest” and to ensure the personal income gains. Therefore, employees may prefer

organizations where there is fair distribution of promotions, payments, and allocation of

Resources - because they want to get these benefits in the future.

2.1.2.2 The relationship model:

The relationship model assumes that individuals are more careful about justice because of

their concerns for identity. Employees’ forms the perceptions of self-respect and self-

esteem when receive fairness from a group of colleagues or organizations that meet their

needs for insertion and maintaining relationship (Blader & Tyler, 2005; Cropanzano, et

al., 2001). The relationship model emphasizes the individual’s hope appreciation, respect

and inclusion in some valued groups. A sense of fairness, especially procedural justice,

helps individuals to explain their status and respect in a group.

2.1.2.3 Deontic Model

The deontic model also known as moral virtue model (Folger, 2001). The model sates

that justice is a basic demand and driving force of people to respect human values and

dignity. This model shows employees have an inner need to survive in a moral social

system. Folger's model of moral virtue (2001) shows personal concern about fairness,

44

because this is the right thing to do. At the encounter of injustice, employees may not

only show concerns for instrumental and relational motives, but also reacts against the

deontic motives. For example, Deontic model shows that there have been unjust

situations, such unequal distribution of rewards against performance appraisal will trigger

the an emotional uncertainty against this moral violation or “Deontic violation” and

resultantly prompts individuals to display negative behavior such as lower employee

performance or retaliation.

2.1.2.4 Organizational Injustice

Injustice means that the employee believes that he or she (or someone else) is being

treated unfairly. Employees who feel unfairly treated may try to “even score” through

negative behaviour at organization. Furham and Siegal (2011) in their study of reactions to

organizational injustice identified that the employees, who face injustice and unfair treatment,

become dissatisfied with their job and management and thus their dissatisfaction results into

a threat for organization by negative work behavior e.g. employee deviance, retaliation, revenge

or any other CWB. Crino (1994) observed, an employee who was disrespected, receives

delay in due promotions, additional responsibilities without increments or additional

payments, limited provision of resources to complete the work, or did not get what he

believes important to get for managing the people has more potential to display negative

behavior towards the organization.

Prior literature provides ample evidence for the frequent detriments of injustice at

workplace (e.g. Neuman & Baron, 1998; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Robinson & Bennett,

45

1997; Crino & Leap, 1989;, 1996; Crino, 1994; Tucker, 1993; Sieh, 1987). Empirical

research on the injustice shows that it is related to different types of negative workplace

behaviours, such as aggression directed against supervisors (Greenberg & Barling, 1999),

theft (Greenberg, 1993a, b); greater intent to leave (Dailey & Kirk, 1992; Konovsky &

Cropanzano, 1991), vandalism (DeMore, Fisher, & Baron, 1988) and absenteeism

(Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002; Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002). In their study on

injustice and retaliation, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that conditions of multiple

unfairness (distributive, procedural, and interactional) were associated with higher levels

of organizational retaliatory behavior In addition, Skarlicki et al. (1999) studied deviant

behavior among organizational members and identified that the negative affectivity

characterized by negative emotions caused deviant behavior. Gilliland and Chan (2001) put

forth a significant evidence suggesting a relationship between the perception of

organizational injustice and negative voluntary behavior within organizations. Kelloway et al.

(2007, 2008) proposed that injustice refers to an employee's belief and perception of his or

her being treated unfairly which further leads to counterwork behavior and may even force the

victims to ''even the score'' by counteracting and thus threatening the well-being of

organization or its members, or both (Bies & Tripp, 2005). Robinson (2008) studied the

organizational injustice and deviant work behavior and found that employees perceiving

unjustice tend to react and this leads to counterproductive behavior. Jones (2008) further

proposed that DWB manifests employees' desire for revenge as a reaction to perceived

injustice. similarly injustice may predict positive organizational outcomes negatively like

46

2.1.3 Organizational Justice Verses Injustice

Most scholars used notion of ‘justice’ to explain the employee's fairness concerns in

workplace, however, few recent studies have proposed that discussing injustice is more

appropriate due to its serious consequences for organizational work (De Cremer and

Ruiter, 2003). Such a change in the use of terminology is due to the wealth of literature

and greater concentration of justice research on discussing in-justice rather than to justice

as the main workplace concern (Bies, 2001), and perceptions of injustice more strongly

affect the employee than that of justice or fairness (Judge & Colquitt, 2004, Folger &

Cropanzano, 1998). Folger, (1984) argued that the study of injustice rather than justice

will provide more logical and rational reasons to academics and professionals.

In addition, justice experts agree that people respond to injustice differently from justice

(Colquitt et al, 2014, Organ, 1990). Injustice has become the strongest cause of the

individual’s responses and reactions at workplace (Cropanzano et al, 2011). Injustice is a

"hot cognitive process ... in which cognitive and emotional determinants often work

together to produce judgments, people think they are just or unfair" (Venden Bos, 2007).

Moreover, (Colquitt and colleagues, 2015) claimed that to view overall fairness and

overall unfairness in bivariate terms is conceptually more valuable because it is an

aggregate evaluation formed from the bracketing of multiple justice events, experiences,

and dimensions. As such, overall fairness and overall unfairness resemble the positive

and negative evaluations, and the positive and negative affect, that have been studied in

bivariate terms. Although the utility of this approach would need to be explored in future

research, it could allow scholars to capture, say, a boss Who was fair in some respects

47

(e.g., chronic procedural and informational rule adherence) but unfair in Other respects

(e.g., chronic distributive and interpersonal rule violation). Therefore, the present study

focused on overall injustice, rather than justice.

This research is inclined to examine the employee’s overall injustice perception in the

performance appraisal context and its influence on different organizational outcomes.

"The overall fairness theory is conceptualized to understand employees' perceptions of

Overall injustice perceptions. To better understand the practical significance of justice

perceptions, the study examined overall injustice perceptions in response to performance

appraisal purposefulness failure and how injustice perceptions predicts attitudes and

behavioral outcomes.

2.1.4 Overall injustice:

From the last few decades justice scholars remained interested in probing the different

facets of justice / injustice, its features, important for the reward or outcome distribution,

the procedures followed for allocation of outcomes, and the way individuals are treated

by their supervisor during the provision of outcomes, indeed the justice research has

advanced by highlighting and identifying the distinctions between different types of

injustice. But now after 50 years of research on making distinctions in different types of

injustice, researchers are looking for a more holistic view of justice and began to research

the notion of overall injustice as an important construct which was ignored previously

(Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b). Brockner and colleagues (1986) and Krebhiel &

48

Cropanzano (Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000) found that injustice that is in one’s favor

produces different emotions than injustice that is not.

2.1.4.1 Theoretical implications for Overall injustice

The relationship between injustice and negative organizational outcomes (e. g. deviant

work behavior, retaliation, sabotage, CWB) has been well documented (eg Berry, Ones,

& Sackett., 2007; Conlon, Jones & Skarlick, 2005; Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005; Meyer, &

Nowakowski, 2005; O'Brien and Vandello, 2005; Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke,

2002; Bennett & Robinson, 2002; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Trevino & Weiver, 2001;

Porter, & Ng, 2001; Greenberg, 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Aquino, Lewis,

& Bradfield, 1999; Greenberg, 1990;). Empirical studies by Ambrose et al. (2002), Jones

and Skarlicki (2005), and Trevino and Weaver (2005) show that perceived injustice is a

strong predictor of employee harmful behaviors. . Organizational injustice suggests that

individuals do not feel that they are treated fairly by the organization, management or

colleagues (Greenberg, 2004). Previous literature divides it into three sub-dimensions,

namely, procedural justice, distributive justice, and interactive justice (Ambrose et al.,

2002; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002). Procedural injustice takes into account the

unfairness of the processes and procedures implemented by the supervisor or

organization. It refers the way individuals are treated in a process or event, such as during

termination or reorganization or daily activities (Cropanzano et al., 2002). Distributive

injustice refers to whether an individual believes that the benefits and rewards of

organizational distribution are fairly distributed (Aquino et al., 1999). If the individual

believes that he or she is not properly compensated, this will result in a perception of

49

unfair distribution or unfairness. Interactive justice refers to the daily contact and

socialization of employees with their superiors and colleagues (Henle, 2005). For

example, if an employee is abused by a boss, the employee will find an injustice in

interaction (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).

Past researchers have emphasized whether various types of injustice have differentially

predicted certain forms of negative behavior in the workplace (Bennett & Robinson,

2003), such as theft (Greenberg, 2002). Ambrose and Arnaud (2005) point out that the

main focus of organizational justice research is to examine the unique differences in each

type of justice (eg, distribution, procedures, and interactive justice) to demonstrate the

utility of different types of justice. . In addition, many studies have evaluated the

relationship between different types of organizational injustice and workplace bias

patterns (Ambrose et al., 2002; Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004). However, Ambrose

and Arnaud (2005) argue that focusing on unique variances may obscure the overall

impact of fairness on outcome variables. Other researchers have also called for more

attention to overall fairness (Greenberg, 2001). Greenberg (2001, p. 21) asserts that when

individuals form a perception of justice, they are making a “holistic judgment in which

they make all available and significant information. reaction". For example, unfair

victims do not necessarily worry about the existence of two or more types of justice, but

rather respond to the general experience of injustice (Shapiro, 2001). In addition, there

has been frequent research calls in literature for overall justice because it provides a more

modern, accurate and concise description of the real-life experience of employees (e.g.

Ambrose & Arnaud 2005; Ambrose & Schminke 2009; Lind 2001a; Lind 2001b; Shapiro

50

2001 ; Tornblom & Vermunt, 1999). Therefore, we believe that overall organizational

injustice is an important structure to explain employee participation in workplace bias.

The overall injustice is important concept to examine due to several reasons as discussed

by (Ambrose, Wo, & Griffith, 2015; Holtz & Harold, 2009). Overall injustice is a better

phenomenon to represent thein justice experience of individual because previous

researches shows that individual may differentiate among different types of justice but

they experience justice in a holistic manner. Secondly overall injustice gives a complete

representation of its influences in on specific situation in organization. Thirdly, the

injustice scholars often establish similar estimates to examine the different kinds of

justice, which shows that researchers are more interested in measuring the overall effect

rather than its dimensions. Fourth, overall injustice enhances the predictability of

outcomes and at last, overall justice can be studied as a motivational force relative to

other motivational forces.

Moreover, some other research Barcley and Saldhana (2015) identified some other

factors also first; there is considerable ambiguity in the literature on distinguishing justice

and in-justice. Many scholars differentiate justice and in-justice and treat them as

different concepts (eg Bies, 2001; Gilliland, 2008). In addition, Colquitt, and colleague

(2010) have empirically demonstrated that focusing on "unfair" measures (for example,

focusing on being seen as rude rather than respectfully waiting) about "justice." However,

these structures are often used interchangeably; many scholars focus on justice when they

are committed to researching injustices and vice versa (see Bies & Tripp, 2002).

Researchers often use scales that focus on the criterion of justice when exploring the

51

unjust experience of individuals (See Colquitt, 2001). Research from Barclay and

Whiteside (2011); Hillebrandt and Barclay, (2013); Whiteside and Barclay, (2013)

argued that the experience of in-justice and justice may be different and that justice may

be a more cognitive phenomenon, that injustice may be full of emotion, It is unlikely to

be captured solely by personal opinion. Rather, injustice may be better understood by

exploring how individuals experience unjustness (Barclay & Whiteside, 2011;

Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2013; Shapiro, 2001). It also shows that unjust measures need to

go beyond perceptual standards to include unjust experiences. In addition, this distinction

also shows that the restoration of justice may be a different phenomenon. Clearly, more

research is needed to differentiate these structures (and to develop measures that can

assess justice and injustice).

At last, however, individuals may experience unfair situations in other areas (such as

personal relationships) and experience negative situations unrelated to justice. This

necessitate enquiring whether management of injustice is a particular situation or a

broader phenomenon (for example, recovered from negative experiences). In our view, an

unjust recovery from an organization may share many characteristics with other

violations - for example, those experiences are likely to be personal stressors and trigger

the need to respond in some way (Vermunt & Steensma, 2001). However, we also think

there may be differences among organizational injustice and other negative experiences.

These differences may be related to organizational settings that are uniquely related to

unfair experiences (and other negative phenomena), workplace-related contextual factors

(eg, organizational culture, constraints on the ability to express certain emotions or

52

behaviors), and according to Barclay & Kiefer, (2014) the differences related to the

nature of the work relationship (eg, norms, roles, powers / status, etc.). Therefore, it is

suggested that more theoretical and conceptual work is needed to further clarify the

commonalities and differences between organizational injustices in the context of other

phenomena.

In fact, Colquitt et al, (2014), referred the researchers who used scales widely to measure

justice that emphasizes compliance with the norms of justice, while to measure injustice

the focus will be to measure the violation of the norms of justice The notion explains that

when the employee perceives that the violation of the rules of justice has stronger effects

on the response and reaction of the employee towards adherence to the rule of injustice, it

has become a challenge in the justice literature (Colquitt et al. al, 2014).

APPLYING ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE THEORY ON PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL AND ITS PURPOSEFULNESS:

Previous research states that justice have significant influences on both of supervisor’s

and subordinate’s reactions to performance appraisal. According to Landy, et al., (1980)

people in specific situations are more expected to have faith in on the fairness and

accuracy of their performance appraisal. For instance, the individuals carries positive

opinions about fairness when they perceive that the managers were aware about their

work, they have regular performance appraisals, when there is an opportunity to share

their view during interviews and in the interview their clear goals are set for them to

perform.

53

The identification of fairness issue highlighted in these two studies, the justice

performance appraisal research trend gradually decrease during 1980. In depth review of

research on performance appraisal from 1985 to 1990s, there’s found merely one research

discussing fairness problems.

Greenberg in (1986a) applied the justice theory in the area of performance appraisal. He

importantly found that “what could make the appraisal system be perceived as just?” the

answer found discussed the two distinct facets of justice (e.g. distributive justice and

procedural justice). He further divided these factors in seven classes leading to the

employee justice perceptions. The distributive justice segregated in two classes one

discusses the evaluations built upon employee’s achieved performance level and second

stands on deciding promotion or pay originated from the performance evaluations of

employee. The other five aspects were discussed form procedural justice perspective,

which comprised on one, soliciting supervisor’s response before evaluation and using this

feedback in appraisals, second requires reciprocal communication among supervisor and

subordinate for the appraisal discussion, third the capacity potential for individuals to

argument or challenge the appraisal results, fourth discusses to what extent rater is

consistently applying performance criteria, and fifth covers the familiarity of rater with

ratees’ contributions and performance (Walsh, 2003).

Since 1990, other researchers have also started to focus on the importance of justice in

performance evaluation research. The literature emerged with some important theoretic

54

models and researches. Many of these researches tried to unleash the processes inherited

in performance appraisals and procedural justice. Folger, et al in (1992) introduced ‘due

process’ metaphor to apply theory of “procedural justice” performance appraisal context.

This ‘due process’ law implies three important and basic features (e.g. “adequate notice”,

“fair hearing” and an “evidence based judgment”) to clarify nine aspects of a

performance appraisal that carries fair procedures. Adequate notice ensures that

organization must allow employees to have complete knowledge of appraisal system and

the way the system works and influence them prior to any appraisal is steered. The

organizations must have clear performance criteria and standards at first and later on a

clear distribution, allocation and explanation must be provided to the subordinate’s earlier

to the appraisal. Next, the employee should be encouraged by the organization to

participate in the development of performance objectives and criteria, and let workers to

ask questions like why and in what way goals must be reached. Lastly, organizations

must give consistent feedback to workers during the appraisal period. Secondly, fair

hearing requires to give rates in appraisal interviews and also confirms ratees to get the

chance to avail the appraisal procedures, ensures self-evaluation and test the ranks and

assessment results. In appraisal meetings, appraiser must give a performance rating built

on the individual’s behavior, his performance and work output. Fair hearing offers a

chance for two way communication and ensures the employees’ participation / voice in

some performance appraisal processes. Thirdly, the evidence based judgments requires

the regular application of performance criteria across all employees and takes assessment

decisions free from favouritism, political pressure and fraudulence. Such evaluations

55

must endure employee analysis and provide them an opportunity to inquire, appeal and

confer the evaluations with related individuals (Folger, Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1992).

A number of researches have examined the Folger, and colleage’s. (1992) model named

as “due process model”. Like Taylor, et al.,, (1995) used quasi-experimental design to

introduce an appraisal form using due process model for raters and rates in government

organizations. The results showed that the individuals involved in appraisal comprised on

due process would display more positive and adequate fairness perceptions, and are more

satisfied with their supervisors and appraisal systems comparative to members of

previous performance appraisal system. Similarly, the appraisers who opted for due

process ensured more positive reactions and larger satisfaction to their appraisal system

than the group who do not used the due process in their appraisal system. The managers

also informed that due process is helpful in problem solving and also minimizes

distortions in outcomes of performance appraisal in favour of individual.

Korsgaard and Roberson (1995) argued that employees’ voice or participation in

organizational decision making contributes as a key factor in fair hearing of model of due

process. ‘Voice’ involves positive attitude and reactions and helps to build fairness

perceptions about the organization’s system of performance appriasal. The voice

comprised on “instrumental” and “non-instrumental” parts. Thibaut & Walker tried to

explain the instrumental and in (1975), defined instrumental voice as employees’

indirect control on decision, whereas direct control on decisions does not exist. The non-

56

instrumental voice is intrinsically valued irrespective of its impact on decision making”

(Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995). This study further reported that both instrumental and

non-instrumental voice have more independent and comparable impacts on employees’

performance appraisal satisfaction. Yet, merely the non-instrumental voice influence the

subordinates’ attitude toward their supervisors. So, the research indicates trust in

manager was merely related to the non-instrumental voice.

The prior research divides procedural justice in appraisal context from two different

aspects, first is raters’ procedural justice and other is systems’ procedural justice

(Erdogan, et al., 2001); some other discussed the procedural justice is the organizational

fairness and supervisor’s fairness is interactional justice (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman and

Taylor, 2000; Moorman, 1991). According to Erdogan et al. (2001) the raters openly

participate in performance appraisal process and may impact its procedures largely. The

organizations implement the performance criteria and set fair procedures that supposed to

lead the appraisal, but if supervisors are not willing to implement those standards and

procedures in an accurate and honest manner, the individual will not perceive the

procedures as fair. Erdogan in (2001) separated supervisors’ procedural justice (involves

processes used by rater during performance appraisal from systems’ procedural justice

(discusses the organizational rules regulations and procedures adopted for performance

appraisal). The research linked the different aspects of due process with rater’s

procedural justice and system’s procedural justice. For instance, Walsh (2003) viewed

the appraisal knowledge as systems’ procedural justice; whereas he linked fair hearing

57

and giving feedback with raters’ procedural justice (Walsh, 2003). Erdogan et al. (2001)

stressed upon the need to differentiate two constructs as it’s helpful for the organization

in finding the sources of injustice and move toward improvement correctly.

Moreover prior investigations explained procedural justice in context of performance

appraisal, also focused on examining the link among fairness perceptions of employee

and attitudes of employee towards performance appraisal system. It is evident that

employee’s perceptions of distributive justice have a relationship with persons’ level of

job satisfaction or pay satisfaction; whereas the procedural justice perceptions of

employees linked with organizational commitment at employee level (Tang & Sarsfield-

Baldwin, 1996). They also established scales for measuring the distributive as well as

procedural justice in Performance Appraisal domain and apply them to get the

hypothesized results, like satisfaction of employee with promotion opportunities, pay

patterns, managers and performance appraisal system itself. The procedural justice’s

proposed scale contains 22 items, further classified in five types including “two-way

communication, fairness, trust in supervisor, understanding the performance appraisal

process and clarity of performance appraisal process”.

Over the past ten years, only few researcher examined organizational justice in context of

the performance evaluation system. Most of them focus on the effects of “distributive” or

“procedural” justice, but seldom (Cook and Crossman 2004; Erdogan et al. 2001;

Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng 2001; Flint 1999; Folger, Konovsky &

58

Cropanzano, 1992). Only a few studies discuss one or both of the elements related to an

appraisal system such as employee voice (Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995); monitoring

feedback (Leung, Su & Morris, 2001); location, ability of rater and ability to challenge

outcomes (Barclay & Harland, 1995). Therefore, the prior studies on the justice of

performance evaluation widely emphasizing to explain the fairness of the results and the

formulation process. The social component of the assessment system is important but

widely overlooked. For example, Walsh (2003) found the importance of social

performance appraisals to evaluate the interpersonal relationships and opinions of

appraisers and the significance of evaluating the outcome of the selection process. In fact,

some previous studies have examined the social parts of the appraisal, but there is no

clear distinction between social distribution and procedures (Roberts & Reed, 1996;

Greenberg, 1986; Landy, Barnes & Murphy, 1978).

Greenberg in (1993) introduced an integrative justice model for appraisal system, that

comprised on four justice categories and Thurston (2001) has offered ten different scales

to measure these important justice aspects.

The Greenberg’s justice model (1993) adds the different understandings of various

justice theories and differentiate justice types from each other and each justice type’s

determinants. Greenberg in (1993) analyzed distributive and procedural justice with

structural and social determinants of justice to produce a model to depict the four further

classes of justice perceptions. Greenberg divided his model in four quadrant of justice,

one is informational justice consisting on “social-procedural”; secondly, systemic justice

59

based on “structural-procedural”; interpersonal justice indicating “social-distributive”

aspect and configural justice involve the “structural-distributive”.

The literature of different types of justice could be explained through Greenberg’s justice

taxonomy (1993). This is also helpful to examine the perceptions of employee regarding

the organization’s performance appraisal system. According to this model, the

distributive justice involves the allocation of rewards; whereas the procedural justice is

focused on answering how distribution decisions are made. However, the structural part

determines the ‘context of decision making’ about outcomes and procedures; while, the

quality of supervisor’s interactions with subordinates and how well outcomes and

procedures are communicated covered under the social component of justice. (Greenberg,

1993).

Different unique aspects of appraisal practices could be examined using the four

components of Greenberg’s model (1993). Performance appraisal’s Structural dimension

can be related with Configural and systemic justice. The ‘Configural justice’ is the

product of structurally determined distributive justice which might be relevant to the

norms of decisions associated to the organizational practices of performance appraisal,

like equity or equality norm, degree of political pressure is taken, or how appraisal

outcomes are linked to consequent decisions of administration (Walsh, 2003). ‘System

justice’ comprised on structurally determined procedural justice, also have roots in justice

model of Leventhal’s (1980). This concerned with the perceptions of employees about

60

the performance appraisal procedures such as assigning raters, deciding the criteria,

collecting relevant information or pursuing appeals. The fairness of procedures can be

accessed through the confirmation of presence of accuracy, bias suppression, consistent.

Socially determined Informational justice combined the social-procedural components of

justice characterizes the justice perceptions of employees that needs clarification of

performance standards and beliefs, raters’ clarifications and justifications of outcome

decisions and supervisor’s feedback. Socially determined interpersonal justice is made

up of social-distributive justice reveals the how supervisor treats his subordinates during

performance appraisal process whether he is respectful and sensitive toward them.

2.1.5 Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and Organizational injustice

In (1965), the Meyer, Kay, and French reported that the organizations use the

performance appraisals for several motives, and the pressure to achieve such multiple

motives could raise conflicts and contradictions in achieving appraisal goals (Cleveland,

Murphy, & Williams, 1989). The prior studies reported that the purposes of ratings

become affected with the decision about, what types of information is needed to acquire

and how the available information will be used in decision making (like Williams,

DeNisi, et al., 1985; Zedeck & Cascio, 1982). In addition, although the organization has

the purposes of collecting ratings, the raters also have goals and purpose for rating in

their minds, and according to the Murphy, Cleveland, et al., (2004) established that the

rater’s purposes are influenced by the rating attributes at the time of appraisal. In a recent

meta-analysis, Murphy and Denisie reviewed the 100-year research results of

performance evaluation in 2017 and tended to explore background factors for

61

performance evaluation. One of the most important "contextual / background factors"

affecting the assessment process is the purpose of the assessment (Landy & Farr, 1980;

Stephan & Dorfman, 1989). The organizations uses Performance appraisal for different

purposes (Cleveland et al., 1988). These objectives influence the way performance is

defined (eg, in-role performance and extra role performance (Podsakoff, Ahearne, &

MacKenzie, 1997) and how appraiser and appraise are approaching performance the

performance appraisal tasks. Literature shows that performance appraisal often has

multiple purposes (Cleveland et al., 1989). For example, the single performance appraisal

can simultaneously be used to measure the administrative as well as developmental

performance. However, the recent literature on performance appraisal purposes showed

there is no consensus on using PA for different purposes at the same time. For example,

Youngcourt et al. (2007) concluded that the purpose of PA is different and needs to be

used separately. Cheng S. Y., (2014) reported the significance of the administrative

performance evaluation (PA) approach and showed that a positively impact on the

employee, perception of justice perceptions and organizational commitment. Research

showed that PA used for administrative purposes has direct and tangible consequences

(e.g. pay and promotion) whereas for developmental purposes, no rewards are given but

employees are provided the opportunity to learn and develop. Therefore, the different

performance appraisal purposes require different functional approaches to implement a

good PA system. Similarly Iqbal M. Z., (2012) argued that to implemnet a fair and

effective perfromance appraisal system, the synchronized use of all PA categories

appears problematic to practice due to a gap in organizational motives for effective use of

62

PA and employees' perceptions about its use. Iqbal M. Z., (2012) further explained that

this gap is two-fold: administrative (when ratees have low level of confidence and trust

on raters and PA is perceived as unfair) and developmental (when ratees show no concern

about either their ratings or their raters resultant to the perception of nothing is vulnerable

due to lesser rater’s influence on rating). Therefore, the research suggests conducting a

separate PA for achieving the different types of performance appraisal purposes.

Performance appraisal can get the positive employee outcomes if implemented

effectively (Milliman, Nason, Zhu, & De Cieri, 2002). Coversely, the gaps between

firm’s objectives to conduct the PA and ratee’s perception of PA may cause a perceptual

failure of performance appraisal purposes among employees. Other causes of failure of

performance appraisal purposefulness might include poorly documented and

communicated objective of performance appraisal, minimum information and support

form top management, ambiguous performance standards, Rater’s biasness, untrained

and less motivated rater and use of PA for conflicting / political purposes. These factors

distorts or decreases the quality of PA and such employee’s experiences with PA leads to

less commitment to their organizations (Brown et al. 2010) and job satisfaction

(Kampkötter, 2016). If employees perceived a failure of Performance appraisal purposes,

such failure perception may enhance the unfairness perceptions at workplace.

According to Greenberg’s taxonomy of fairness perceptions, the employee ensures the

configural justice which lying upon the perception build upon structural aspects of

appraisal results (Greenberg, 1993). The performance appraisal is itself an outcome and it

is viewed as feedback for making the administrative decisions, which include deciding

63

about promotions, pay increases, employee training programs, and career development

initiatives (Greenberg, 1986b). The structural aspects of performance appraisal related to

distributive justice involves two types of decision norms one is equity for example rater

may be motivated to appraise the individual using Leventhal (1980) other distribution

norms also (e.g. equality, need and social status). Second is the raters personal goals

(motivation, conflict avoidance, favoritism). Performance tests that do not meet fair

criteria may not be fair to the person being evaluated. If employees think the evaluators

try to motivate them, improve their performance, or expand their perception of their

abilities, they may think the assessment is fair. Performance appraisal purposes that may

not be considered as fair if it have conflicts, favoritism and politics.

Secondly, Greenberg explained the Systemic justice- that involves the structurally

determined perceptions of justice procedures adopted to allocate the outcomes or PA

results (Greenberg, 1993). Based on the Leventhal’s (1980) model of procedural justice,

Thurston (2001) explained that the system's justice judgment will depend on the sense of

fairness of each structural component in the process of performance evaluation. These

four scales represent each stage of the performance appraisal process (distribution of

evaluators, development of standards, collection of information, and seeking of appeals.

The four procedures are based on whether they improve accuracy, inhibit prejudice,

represent the concerns of the recipients, and explores whether it is correctable and

consistent application over time.

The social aspects of performance appraisal results Greenberg, (1993) consist on

interpersonal justice. As a part of interactional justice, Interpersonal justice is based on

64

the social rewards given by the supervisors such as priority in reward and assignment

allocation. Bies and Moag explained in (1986) that the types of interpersonal justice

perceptions are built upon (respect and sensitivity). Greenberg (1991) provided evidence

that the supervisors and other representatives who influences the individuals within the

organization showed keen insight. This is the case when appraiser focus on the results

they receive. In particular, Greenberg found that appraisers' apologies and other

expressions have been shown to reduce the unfairness of rating staffs (Tyler 1988). When

authorities assert that they are sensitive, people think Interaction with police and courts is

fair.

This research is inclined to study overall justice perceptions, which are based on different

dimensions of organizational justice. Many researcher have reported that different

dimensions of justice contributes in forming overall justice or injustice perceptions (like

Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt & Shaw, 2005; Lind, 2001a), few studies have

identified the justice dimensions as antecedents of overall justice (Colquitt, 2012).

2.1.5.1 Fairness theory:

The second basis for explaining the hypothesis is the “fairness theory” by Folger and

Cropanzano presented in (1998), it explains the overall justice based on two fundamental

principles namely accountability and counterfactual thinking. Firstly, fairness theory

shows that due to the impact of accountability, factors related to procedural, distributive

and interactive justice may have a negative view of fairness (Folger & Cropanzano

1998). Consequently, when it is viewed to be unfair, annoyed parties (eg, subordinate) try

65

to determine the person responsible for the action or unjust event (i.e, the offender) and

his future intentions or motives. Therefore, accountability is crucial to the theory of

fairness because some people think that if there is any injustice, it is blamed to someone

(see Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). Accountability uses three core relative components

apply the fairness theory to performance appraisal purposefulness failure. First, negative

conditions or events (eg, performance appraisal purposefulness failure) that harms the

employee / ratee (e.g., impair self-esteem). Resultantly, at minimum, one event exists and

some parties are considered accountable for the occurrence of unwanted event. Secondly,

relative to particular event, perceptual violation of control on the action taken occurs (for

example, the supervisor may choose to handle the appraisal in various ways). The

employee perceives that the authorities are responsible for the actions they choose and

have some control on possible decisions for which they are held accountable. Third, the

actions in place were considered to disrupt the normative/ethical criteria (for example,

supervisor fails to explain the procedures adopted for distribution of rewards may

perceived to be violating the procedural justice laws).

Second, fundamental principles used to explain fairness theory is counterfactual thinking.

In short, the counterfactual idea is to compare possible scenarios and contrasting

philosophies (Roese, 1997). When using “counterfactual thinking”, cognitively one may

change some aspects of event and evaluate the consequences in that case (Roese & Olson

1995). Importantly, in 2001, Folger and Cropanzano argue that “counterfactual thinking”

assesses the action’s accountability (for example, failure of performance appraisal

purposes). When applying this to the failure of performance appraisal purposes events,

66

employees can think of different behaviors that are separated from what happened

actually, there are actions considered counter-factually. The employee is considering a

contrasting framework for this, explaining how things occure in different ways. For

example, an employee with the failure perception of performance appraisal may reflect: I

would be happier if the performance appraisal rewards were equally and fairly allocated”.

Therefore, in assessing accountability (and fairness), for the event, it is advisable for the

employee to perform three contrasting activities: could (rewards were allocated fairly),

what should be done (equally treated), and how to take an alternative action (feel good).

In addition, fairness theory points out that this counterfactual way of thinking triggers

subsequent feelings. The overall fairness is similar to that of the overall satisfaction

measure in the job satisfaction literature, which tends to consider overall satisfaction as a

more specific and satisfying outcome (eg, Bowring & Hammond, 2008; Ironson, Smith,

Brannick, Gibson & Paul, 1989). There are many potential benefits to adopting an overall

fairness measure. Perhaps most importantly, it explicitly captures the "unfair!" Violation

of the rules. Such violations of the rules include fairness, consistency, accuracy,

respectability, authenticity, and so on. It also allows scholars to confirm that this is a fair

or unjustified explanation of why overall justice predict key organizational outcomes.

Negative emotions such as anger usually occur if one concludes that the organization

should attribute unfair outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2000).

2.1.6 Facets of Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure

67

2.1.6.1 Administrative purposefulness failure:

Administrative purposes involve decisions such as managing employee’s salary, deciding

about promotion, whether to retain or terminate the employees, mechanism to recognize

the performance of individual, criteria for laying off employees, and lower job

performance. These are the most common purposes of performance appraisal, which

often focus on individual measurement. The focus is on distinguishing individuals

(Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007). According to Denisi (1984), the assessments made

for administrative decision-making may lead the evaluators to seek trait-oriented

behavior and activate feature-oriented models, such as energetic workers. Matte (1982)

found in another study that evaluators who perform administrative decision evaluations

require more information than evaluators who evaluate feedback, although Matte did not

specifically examine the type of information sought. Many studies link the purpose of

performance appraisal with justice cognition (eg, Palaiologos, Papazekos, &

Panayotopoulou, 2011; Greenberg J., 1990; Erdogan, 2002; Jawahar, 2007; Youngcourt,

Leiva, & Jones, 2007), finds the all types of justice are related, but distributive justice has

a greater impact on individual-level results, such as administrative or evaluation

purposes.

2.1.6.2 Developmental purposefulness Failure

The second element of "within-individuals" has a development focus and is referred to in

the recent literature as a development goal (Iqbal, et al. 2014) and also as an individual

68

focus point of reasoning (Jawahar, 2007; Palaiologos, et al., 2011). The development

goals mainly include determining the individual's training needs, performance feedback,

determination of mobilization and distribution, and determination of individual strengths

and weaknesses. The focus of these goals is on improving employee capabilities and

personal development (Palaiologos, et al., 2011). The development goals of PA are

related to interactive justice, and employees' views on various performance evaluation

standards confirmed a positive relation with procedural justice. Evaluator’s feedback and

employee satisfaction is positively correlated with interactional justice (Palaiologos, et

al., 2011).

2.1.6.3 Strategic Purposefulness Failure:

Strategic purposes or system maintenance include personnel planning, identifying

organizational training needs, assessing goal achievement, evaluating personnel systems,

strengthening power, structure, and determining organizational development needs. The

research shows that strategic problems are considered the most important, because these

links have selected evaluation systems and business strategies to establish an objective,

mandatory, challenging, well-planned, value-added and structured system to measure the

performance of employees (Palaiologos, et al., 2011; Wright, 2004). Similarly, in the

recent review of the literature on the purposes of performance evaluation (Iqbal MZ,

2012), two key uses of the purpose of a performance assessment strategy are

demonstrated: through identification, Establish and achieve a useful relationship between

69

organizational goals and personal goals, and influence employee perceptions of the

organization’s important goals. Second, the strategic purpose of performance evaluation

is to guide managers to address legal issues such as anti-discrimination laws and provide

guidance for compliance of employment legality issues e.g. equal employment

opportunities.

In addition, the company's macro-strategic perspective, resource-based perspectives

(Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001; Barney, 1991) challenge traditional corporate

perspectives. This perspective explains the company's competitive advantage depends on

the value of resources, scarcity, hard to imitate and hard to substitute alternatives.

Therefore, according to the Burney’s viewpoint, HR (people) serves as keystone to

achieve the core competitiveness of the organization. As the firms are more intended to

invest heavily in human resource, which has compelled researchers to recognize

employees as sources of gaining the competitive edge in a turbulent business

environment (Barney et al., 2001; Barney, 1991), particularly those that attach great

importance and distinctiveness to the core competencies of the company (Lepak and

Snell, 1999). Effectively established performance appraisal mechanisms may distract

employees from concerns about fairness and fairness, as well as motivate individuals to

improve their performance levels (Mulvaney, McKinney & Grodsky, 2012).

Prior literature is evident that employees' sense of fairness and precision in the process of

performance appraisal are the result of the determination of assessment frequency goals,

70

and the supervisor’s knowledge of the performance appraisal process and subordinate

responsibilities (Landy et al., 1978, 1980). Similarly, if the literature focuses on

employee development and his performance improvement (Dipboye & Pontbriand,

1981), then the literature will obviously increase employee satisfaction and higher

assessment acceptance.

2.1.6.4 Role Definition Purposefulness Failure

The role definition purposefulness of performance evaluation, also called position-

focused (Jawahar, 2007; Cleveland, Murphy and Williams, 1989).Performance elements

include not only abilities and motivations but also individuals’ clear understanding of

what they expect. This social information is defined as a role definition that describes the

degree of openness of important role behavior within the context of organization by

finding work responsibilities that are not needed and assessment areas that need to exceed

current job requirements (Youngcourt, Leiva, Jones, 2007). This kind of performance

evaluation helps employees fully understand the inherent advantages and disadvantages

about the positions and roles performed by them (Law & Tam, 2008; Hanley & Nguyen,

2005). The purpose of the role definition is useful for the entire organization because the

information collected through the PA can show the increase or decrease in the number of

positions in the breadth of the role, indicating that more or less resources should be

allocated (Plaiologos et al., 2011). Therefore, performance evaluation decisions and

references to personal validity are also related to the effectiveness of the entire job

(DeNisi, 2000; Murphy & Cleveland, 1992). Existing research depicts that justice in the

71

procedures chosen for performance evaluation will encourage and motivate the ratees to

perform well, and if ratees indicate that the evaluation process is unjust / unfair, they will

reluctant to perform well (Kominis & Emmanuel , 2007).

2.1.7 Outcomes of Organizational Justice / Injustice:

Greenberg (2009) and Cropanzana et al. (2007) explored in one study the positive impact

of “procedural justice” and “interactional justice” on work outcomes. In contrast, Sulu et

al. (2010) examined the adverse relation in “procedural” and “distributive” injustice and

organizational commitment. In addition, it explores the inequitable distribution of staff

turnover intention (Hassan & Hashim, 2011). A recent study by Cheng (2014)

emphasizes that organizational justice is closely linked to performance appraisal. On the

other hand, Greenberg (2010) found that employees who were treated unfairly suffered

more physical and mental illness. However, this study tends to examine the impact of the

failure of performance appraisal goals on job performance and retaliation.

2.1.7.1 In-role Performance:

In-role performance is the traditional and essential aspect of overall work performance

(whole, 2012). Many types of researchers tried to define work performance nevertheless

it remain a confusion because each study defines work performance differently.

Currently, a meta-analysis on work performance displays that two important factors

constitute the work performance i.e. task/In-role performance and contextual/extra-role

performance (Koopmans, et al., 2011; Motowildo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). They were

72

the first to introduce the concepts of task and contextual performance. However, the

terms are also denoted as In-role and extra-role performance respectively.

Katz & Kahn, (1978) explained in role behaviors as the formal part of an individual’s job

and are normally accepted under the prescribed reward system of his organization. As in-

role performance is a fundamental obligation or promise that one makes with his

employer, workers might decide not to fulfil the in-role performance while they believe

that their organization cannot comply with its obligations in response (Zhao, Wayne,

Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). It refers to formally compulsory outcomes and behaviors

which serve the organizational goals directly (Taris, 2006), or in other words, “the

formally prescribed job responsibilities” (Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003).

Prior research shows a large number of factors influencing work performance, which

necessitate the organizations to use different strategies and practices to consider these

effects (William, 2001), from which performance appraisal system acts as an important

factor (whole, 2012). Considering the impact of justice on employee performance (in

roles and additional roles), existing researches have clearly shown the influence of justice

on the behavior of the organization, including the role-behavior (Brockner & Wiesenfeld,

1996; Greenberg, 1987; Adams, 1965) and the perspectives of the roles of employees

demonstrated in the workplace (Organ & Moorman, 1993). The findings of the study

testing the impact of “procedural justice” on the “employee performance” are mixed, as

Konovsky & Cropanzano, in (1991) has showed positive influences and Kanfer et al.,

(1987) showed negative influences.

73

2.1.7.2 Retaliation:

Retaliation is defined as a behavior in reaction to perceived organizational injustice,

which is proposed to punish the other party perceived as the cause of injustice (Skarlicki

& Folger, 1997). Initially, The Folger and Bies (1989) established the relationship

between perceived organizational injustice with organizational retaliatory behavior while

observing the codes of procedures, due processes, and dignity, which are inserted in legal

doings in the main institutes of all cultured civilizations. They further argued that

employee knowhow of these rules will enforce executives to follow such principles

sincerely, whereas a failure to ensure these will foster the forceful and annoyed responses

from the workers (Folger & Bies, 1989). Previous research has verified that justice

perceptions result in improved positive attitude and behavior of employee, like

“organizational citizenship behaviors” (Skarlicki & Latham 1996, 1997) and

“organizational commitment” (Folger & Konovsky 1989) however, alternatively the

injustice feelings will cause increased turnover of employees (Dailey & Kirk, 1992) and a

display of retaliatory behavior at workplace, for instance the negative responses may

involve intentions to theft, increased absenteeism, intentional inactivity, vandalism

(Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).

The focus of this research is on the factors that influence employees' perceptions of

fairness about their performance evaluation. More specifically, we believe that employees

have a strong influence on their sense of fairness, which is related to moral and immoral

behavior (Spector and Fox, 2002; Fox et al., 2001). Numerous reasons can be discussed

74

to support this. First, the concept of justice is related to moral and immoral work forms

(Cropanzano and Stein, 2009). For example, Organ and Ryan (1995) in their meta-

analysis on citizenship reported that various justice facets like distributive, procedural,

and overall have a significant and positive relationship with to citizenship behavior.

Similarly, Skarlicki and his colleague pointed out that supervisor's unfair practices (unfair

procedures and unfair interpersonal behavior) can motivate employees to take aggregate

retaliatory actions in an attempt to punish those who are responsible for unfair conditions

and restore justice. (Skarlicki et al., 1999; Skarlicki & Folger 1997). This "revenge on the

organization" (Bidder et al., 2001) is an unethical act designed to deliberately destroy an

organization.

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

2.1.8 Administrative purposefulness failure and In-role Performance and

Retaliation:

Administrative purposes are also referred to as among individuals (wage management,

promotion decisions, retention or termination, recognition of individual performance,

dismissal, and determination of bad results). The PA rating helps managers to determine

whether individual needs to promote personal potential (Milliman et al. 2002). The result

of performance appraisal and evaluation of employees' performance level are important

factors that determine employee compensation, promotion, and layoffs (Kondrasuk et al.,

2008; Youngcourt et al., 2007). These scores have also become an important part of the

employee performance record as a legal document to prove the employee's decision to

75

terminate when needed (Mathis & Jackson, 2012). Administrative decision-making may

lead to increased wages, bonuses and promotions, which are often the result of staffing.

Earlier researches explored that compensation decisions based on performance is related

to greater degree of “overall (job) satisfaction” (for example, see Green & Heywood,

2008; Heywood & Wei, 2006). Bryson et al. (2012) in a recent research has empirically

examined piece-rate wages, based on the relation in team incentives / profit sharing plans

and job satisfaction, and showed workers under the PRP plan to work and control wage

levels. Although the evaluation has benefits and is helpful as a tool to manage the

workplace (Walsh, 2003), there is a problem that distort its practicality. Problems in the

assessment hinder their effectiveness in the workplace and sometimes affect the attitudes,

reactions, behaviors and performance of the staff in the workplace. As some researchers

point out, performance evaluation systems are ineffective, if raters do not accept them

(Carroll & Schneier, 1982; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). They are generally more

satisfied with the degree of acceptance or satisfaction with job evaluations. In other

words, lack of satisfaction with the assessment, staff not accepting assessments, or unfair

or inaccurate assessments may lead to dissatisfaction with the overall work because the

assessment results are unlikely.

Organizational Justice theory refers to the perceived fairness of administrative purposes,

typically include the fair allocation of pay, benefits and rewards (Adams 1965; Leventhal

1976). Greenberg’s (1993) measured the effects of justice theory on performance

appraisal through its taxonomy of justice perception, he explained that if employee

perceived an injustice in the outcomes of administrative purposes, he may perceives

76

injustice based on some systemic (structural / procedural); informational (social /

procedural); configural (structural / distributive); and interpersonal (social / distributive).

The systematic justice (structure / procedure) is based primarily on the procedural justice

model of Leventhal (1980) and focuses on the perceptual aspects of appraisal process

(allocating appraisers, standards setting, collecting the relevant information, and knowing

the appeal process). Procedural fairness is assessed based on whether they promote

accuracy, suppress prejudice, represent the concerns of recipients and whether they can

be corrected and applied consistently. The configural justice considers the norms of

equity (e.g. a social comparison of administrative outcomes) and politics, favoritism etc.

Performance judgments (structures) based on the quality of work performed by

employees are considered fair in relevance to defined performance criteria (systematic),

on the basis of fairness criteria used in context of appraisal practices (Leventhal, 1980).

The performance appraisal’s social dimension are expressed in terms of interpersonal and

Information justice concept. The way in which appraisers evaluate the employee, whether

gives respect and shows concern for him / her, the perception of interpersonal justice

(social distribution). Information justice (social process) reflects a sense of fairness by

explaining the performance requirements and criteria, received feedback, and explanation

the reasons for the decision. Full explanation (information) Clarified performance

expectations or ratings are considered as based on fairness interactional / social part.

Performance appraisal purposefulness failure can arise when it does not meet one's

perception of the rating that he or she deserves. This difference leads to the global

assessment that the assessment is inaccurate, unfair or a combination of the two. This

77

dissatisfaction may be focused on the performance appraisal itself, but it may also be

related to the employee performance appraisal system and its supervisor.

According to “Fairness theory” given by Folger and Cropanzano in (1998) the

administrative purposefulness failure experiences, using accountability and

counterfactual thinking on basis of “could” “should” and “would” considerations to

evaluate whether moral standards have been violated in the unjust event. The theory is

that when an event occurs (and should happen) at different times, the individual will

blame the authority for the power of the event, and the satisfaction level will be better if

the alternative is brought into play. But if no better alternative is available, fairness

theory’s counterfactual thinking triggers subsequent negative feelings. Negative emotions

such as anger usually occur if one concludes that the organization should attribute unfair

outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2000).

Therefore, on the basis of theory and literature, it is expected that perceived failure of

administrative purposes would have a significant and negative impact on in-role

performance while a significant and positive impact on retaliation.

Hypothesis 1(a):

Perceived administrative purposes failure is negatively related to in-role performance.

Hypothesis 1(b):

Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively related to Retaliation.

78

2.1.9 Developmental Purposefulness failure and In-role performance and

Retaliation:

The purpose of development is also referred to as within-individual (identifying

individual training needs, feedback on performance, transfer and distribution, and

determination of personal strengthens and weakness). Developing the individual’s career

through the appropriate training and development programs is considered as an essential

part of organization’s practices about human resource management (Yew, 2011; Dardar,

Jusoh, & Rasli, 2012). Kuvaas in (2007) found while the relation among developmental

purposefulness and feedback to regulate the self-reported performance by increasing

employees’ internal motivation level. The employee responses to feedback depend on a

set of cognitive variables that in turn predict performance (Kinicki, Prussia, Wu and

McKee-Ryan, 2004). As research shows that, the relationship between the feedback

environment and the behavior (situation) of organizational citizenship is partially

restricted by emotional commitment (Norris-Watts and Levy, 2004).

Greenberg’s (1993) taxonomy of justice perception explains that employee forms the

justice or injustice perceptions on the basis of “systemic” measuring the (structural /

procedural); “informational” concerning the (social / procedural); “configural”

perspective discussing the (structural / distributive); and “interpersonal” aspect referring

the (social / distributive). The systematic justice (structure-procedure) uses the

Leventhal’s (1980) model to explain the underlying justice mechanism about

performance appraisal process (assigning appraisers, setting standards, collecting

information, and appealing for appeals). The justice evaluation for the above appraisal

79

procedures to determine the failure of developmental purposes is assessed considering

whether they promote accuracy, suppress prejudice, represent the concerns of recipients

and whether they can be corrected and applied consistently. If performance appraisal

purposes does not meet the perceptual criteria, the rater perceive a failure of performance

appraisal purposefulness. Next the configural justice evaluates the justice using the equity

norms (e.g. a social comparison of administrative outcomes) and politics, favoritism etc.

Performance judgments (structures) forms fairness lying upon the quality of performed

work by employees on the basis of defined performance criteria (systematic), in

performance appraisal context (Leventhal, 1980). The social dimension of performance

evaluation could be expressed in terms of interpersonal and information justice concept.

The way in which appraisers evaluate the appraisee, e.g. shows concern or gives respect,

the perception of interpersonal justice (social distribution). Information justice (social

process) reflects a sense of fairness based on the explanations of performance targets and

criterions, mechanism of feedback, and clarification of reasons for the decision.

Performance appraisal purposefulness failure occurs when the developmental

performance appraisal purposes does not meet one's perceived expectations of the rating

that he or she deserves. This difference leads to the global assessment that the assessment

is inaccurate, unfair or a combination of the two. This dissatisfaction may be focused on

the performance appraisal itself, but it may also be related to the employee performance

appraisal system and its supervisor.

80

Folger and Cropanzano, (1998), fairness theory explains that accountability and

counterfactual thinking are basic mechanism to explain the administrative purposefulness

failure experiences on basis of “could” “should” and “would” considerations to evaluate

whether moral standards have been violated in the unjust event or not. The theory is that

when an event occurs (and should happen) at different times, the individual will blame

the authority for the power of the event, and the satisfaction level will be better if the

alternative is brought into play. But if no better alternative is available, fairness theory’s

counterfactual thinking triggers subsequent negative feelings. Negative emotions such as

anger usually occur if one concludes that the organization should attribute unfair

outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2000). Therefore, in the light of the theory and relevant

literature, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2(a):

Perceived development purposes failure is negatively related to in-role performance.

Hypothesis 2(b):

Perceived development purposes failure is positively related to Retaliation.

81

2.1.10 Strategic Purposes Failure and In-role Performance and Retaliation

Strategic purposes serves for system maintenance (staff planning, organizational training

needs assessment, goal achievement assessment, staffing systems evaluation,

reinforcement of authority structure and identification of organizational development

needs); The emphasis is on identifying the potential and planning opportunities and

direction of employee growth (Mathis and Jackson, 2011). Abu-Doleh, J. and Weir, D.

(2007) Performance management systems are used "to manage and align" all the

resources of the organization (like “physical”, “human”, “technical” and “informational”)

to achieve the maximum possible performance. Seiden and Sowa (2011) argued "the

ultimate goal of a performance management process is to reconcile individual

performance with organizational performance, which should inform employees about the

organization's objectives, Priorities, and expectations, and how well they contribute”. In

the PA process, this signaling occurs at the beginning of the PA process when the

supervisors draw up individual performance goals with their team members oriented

toward broader organizational goals are then monitored throughout the year as the

supervisory authorities provide feedback to their employees to know whether their

performance meets the organizational requirements or not. This target-oriented process is

a strong driver for a result-oriented culture and is seen as one of the main advantages of

the PA process (Grote, 2000). According to Cascio & Aguinis, (2005), a properly

designed PMS (performance management system) find the results and behaviors

necessary to carry out the strategic priorities of the organization and maximize the extent

to which employees exhibit the desired behaviors and produce the expected results. In

82

addition, according to a study by Mohram et al. (1991) as cited in Herreid, (2006), the

key features to ensure an effective evaluation of performance are 1) “flexibility” in the

relation with the changes that occur in the specific organizational context, and 2) its

alignment with vision and core objectives of the company. It is perceived that it is

fundamental to take advantage of human capital in a desired direction (Takeuchi et al,

2007; Delery and Doty, 1996). Research shows that employee feelings of justice in

performance appraisal processes and accuracy is a result of the appraisal frequency goal

identification, and the knowledge of supervisor about performance appraisal process and

the duties of subordinate (Landy et al. 1978, 1980). Similarly, literature is evident of

greater employee’s performance and larger appraisal acceptance if it is largely

emphasized on development of employee and his performance improvement (Dipboye &

Pontbriand 1981). Effectively establishing a performance appraisal mechanism can

distract employees from fair and equitable concerns and motivate employees to improve

performance (Mulvaney, McKinney, & Grodsky, 2012).

The fundamental assumptions of organizational justice theory can be explained through

Greenberg’s (1993) taxonomy comprised on c can be explained through the procedural

justice model of Leventhal (1980), that evaluates the performance appraisal process

(assigning assessors, setting standards, collecting information, and appealing for appeals)

based on Procedural fairness perceptions about whether to promote accuracy, suppress

prejudice, represent the concerns of recipients and whether they can be corrected and

applied consistently. The model examines the configural justice through the norms of

equity (e.g. a social comparison of strategic outcomes) and politics, favoritism etc.

83

Performance judgments (structures) analyze the quality of work performed by employees

using the fairness in defined performance criteria (systematic), in context of performance

appraisal (Leventhal, 1980). The performance appraisal’s perception of interpersonal

justice (social distribution) explains the way in which appraisers evaluate the appraisee,

whether in a respectful and caring manner. Information justice (social process) reflects a

sense of fairness based on clarifying the performance criteria and standards, feedback

and descriptions of details of decision. Full explanation (information) Performance

appraisal strategic purposefulness failure can arise in case of lack in any one of above

criteria suppose the unequal outcome of performance appraisal strategic intent or the

performance appraisals are not perceived to aligned with mission and vision of the

company or there is a lesser flexibility in strategies. Such lacks or difference in

evaluation criteria may harm employee justice perceptions and its consequences.

Similarly, Fairness theory of Folger and Cropanzano, (1998) explains the administrative

purposefulness failure experiences using accountability and counterfactual thinking on

basis of “could” “should” and “would” considerations to evaluate whether moral

standards have been violated in the unjust event. The theory explains that at the

occurrence of an event (and should happen) at different times, the individual will blame

the authority for the power of the event, and the satisfaction level will be better if the

alternative is brought. But if no better alternative is available, fairness theory’s

counterfactual thinking triggers subsequent negative feelings or injustice. Negative

emotions such as anger usually occur if one concludes that the organization should

attribute unfair outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2000). Therefore, on the basis of theory and

84

literature, it is expected that perceived failure of strategic purposes would have a

significant and negative impact on in-role performance while a significant and positive

impact on retaliation.

Hypothesis 3(a):

Perceived strategic purposes failure is negatively related to in-role performance.

Hypothesis 3(b):

Perceived strategic purposes failure is positively related to Retaliation.

2.1.11 Role Definition Purposefulness failure and In-role performance and

Retaliation:

Role definition describes the (criteria for validation research, documentation of staff

decisions and compliance with legal requirements). Because performance appraisal for

role definition gives the explanation and clarification of roles, we assume that during the

performance appraisal for this purpose, individuals will lesser role ambiguity. Therefore,

by definition, if one considers the assessment at least partially for the clarification of the

role, his or her expectations of the job may not be less obscure. We also think that the

purpose of evaluation is seen as being more satisfied with the performance appraisal of

individuals who have clarified roles and thus showing a higher performance at work.

Spector (1986) used meta-analysis to find that a high level of perceptive control was

positively correlated with job satisfaction. Feedback discussions after the performance

appraisal may be a good time for employees to actively participate in the job definition or

85

to give employees a feel for the performance evaluation process and work. Although the

sound and actual control of the process may not be real, the evaluation helps to clarify the

role of awareness is the key to these emotional reactions. Therefore, it is expected that the

purpose of performance appraisal services in the definition of roles is negatively related

to the improvement of role performance and retaliation. but if there is a lesser job

clarity, and employees are asked to perform complex jobs will cause a failure to role

definition purposes of performance appraisal which resultantly influence the

organizational outcomes. Such as Greenberg’s taxonomy of justice, perception

explains that employee forms the justice perception about the failure of performance

appraisal based on c If strategic purposes of performance appraisal fails to meet the

criteria of anyone of these perceptual process, the employee will resultant perceives

injustice and such injustice may lead to negative organizational outcomes (Colquitt,

2012). In addition the fairness theory stress on the formation of global perceptions of

performance appraisal failure using accountability and counterfactual thinking

mechanism. The theory evaluates the justice or injustice perceptions on the basis of

could, should and would criteria. According to Greenberg and Colquitt (2015), the

fairness theory explains the way when an authority is held responsible for the action

taken. The theory claims that the blame will be in placed in response to three

counterfactual considerations should, could and would. The theory proposed that at the

occurrence of event such as role definition failure of performance appraisal “should

happen” at different times, the individual will blame the authority for not taking the other

feasible actions “could”, and next the concern about whether the decision violates the

86

moral and ethical standards “would”. Negative emotions such as anger usually occur if

one concludes that the organization should attribute unfair outcomes (Cropanzano et al.,

2000). So the role definition purposes failure is negatively related with in-role

performance and positively with Retaliation.

Hypothesis 4(a):

Perceived role definition purposes failure is negatively related to in-role performance and

positively to Retaliation.

Hypothesis 4(b):

Perceived role definition purposes failure is positively related to Retaliation.

2.1.12 Administrative purposes failure and Injustice Perception:

Administrative purposes involve decisions such as fixation of salary, promotions

mechanism, retention/termination, individual’s performance recognition, dismissals, and

handling the poor performers. These are the most common purposes of performance

appraisal, which often focus on individual measurement. The focus is on distinguishing

individuals (Youngcourt, Leiva, &Jones, 2007). According to Denisi (1984), the

assessments made for administrative decision-making may lead the evaluators to seek

trait-oriented behavior and activate feature-oriented models, such as energetic workers.

Matte (1982) found in another study that evaluators who perform administrative decision

evaluations require more information than evaluators who evaluate feedback, although

Matte did not specifically examine the type of information sought. Many studies link the

87

purpose of performance appraisal with perceptions of justice (eg, Palaiologos, et al.,

2011; Jawahar, 2007; Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007; Erdogan, 2002; Greenberg J.,

1990), confirmed the relationship between all types of justice, but greater impacts of

distributive justice on individual-level results, such as administrative or evaluation

purposes. The research depicted that evaluations of development performance are less

biased as compared to administrative purposefulness of performance appraisal (Meyer et

al., 1965). In addition, unfairness in the administrative results of performance appraisal,

such as unequal payments, division of work, interactions, and judgments and assessments

can hurt nurses' opinions and experience (Afzali, et al., 2017). The link can also be

explained with the help of Greenberg’s taxonomy of organizational justice in

performance appraisal, as model divide the performance appraisal’s structural and social

parts on the basis of different types of justice and explained that the individuals evaluates

the justice while enters in structural or social perspective performance appraisal. If

employee fails to perceive justice from any one of the performance appraisal aspects, the

injustice perceptions may enhance. There is a bulk of research to explain the application

of systemic (structural / procedural); informational (social / procedural); configural

(structural / distributive); and interpersonal (social / distributive) in the context of

performance appraisal injustice. For example, employee may perceive the rater to fulfil

the equality, need and social status norms but the rating may not be congruent with the

equity norms so the administrative failure may occur, which consequently leads to

injustice. Moreover, raters personal goals may also leads to injustice perception. For

instance, the performance appraisal may be perceived unfair if rater is perceived to inflate

88

the ratings to avoid conflicts, for political reasons or to favoritism (Longnecker, et al.,

1987). Social justice of performance appraisal might be explained based on respect and

sensitivity aspects of justice (Beis & Moag, 1986). Greenberg (1993) empirically

examined that employees are extremely affected the sensitivity exercised by appraisers

and other superiors and peers in the organization. For instance the rater’s concern for the

ratee’s performance, .apologies and further regret expressions mitigates the unfairness

perceptions of employees but the absence of these elements may enhance the overall

injustice perceptions rate may combine the justice dimensions to form a global perception

of injustice (Colquitt, 2012). Similarly Greenberg and Colquitt, (2005) explained that

overall justice or injustice might be conceptualized using the fairness theory. It explains

the injustice perception using accountability and counterfactual thinking e.g. should,

would and could evaluations in response to perceived problems in administrative

purposes of performance appraisal. So both in the light of theory and literature it is

assumed:

Hypothesis 5 (a):

Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice

perceptions.

2.1.13 Developmental purposes Failure and Injustice Perception:

89

The second element of "within-individuals" has a development focus and has been

referred to in the recent literature as a developmental purposes (Iqbal, et al. 2014;

Jawahar, 2007; Palaiologos, et al.,, 2011), The development goals mainly include the

determination of individual’s needs for training, feedback for performance, allocating

transfer and tasks, and determination of strengthens and weaknesses of individuals. The

focus of these goals is on improving staff capabilities and personal development

(Palaiologos, et al., 2011).

The preceding researches depicts that although development performance is closely

related to administrative purposes of performance appraisal, these purposes are

emphasized in different organizations and differ from organizational characteristics

(Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989). The developmental evaluation is related to the

improvement of individual’s performance and, often, it is unstable within the formal

organizational system (McDowall & Fletcher, 2004). However, it is frequently accesses

the diverse resources of the organization, such as educational and training opportunities.

Previous studies have demonstrated that there is a significant relationship between the

purpose of performance appraisal and the sense of justice, as procedural justice is

strengthened by adhering to "due process" standards including lack of prejudice,

consistency and accuracy (Leventhal, Karuza & Fry, 1980). The Greenberg’s taxonomy

of organizational justice explains the performance appraisal from structural and social

domains. In structural part, he discussed the configural justice, which is based on

perceived distribution of rewards / outcomes and systematic justice is based on

Leventhal’s principles of procedural justice. Research shows that employee do more care

90

of justice for the administrative purposes of performance appraisal rather than

developmental purposes (Palaiologos et al., 2011). However systematic (structural-

procеdural) justice is more important for the developmental purposes like promotions,

transfers, trainings etc., the social justice is based on the supervisor’s treatment

considering respect and sensitivity principles, how much supervisor is sensitive for the

outcomes rate received for developmental purposes of performance appraisal and whether

the right information is provided to the ratee at right time. (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005;

Colquitt, 2012) argued that individual combines the justice / injustice perceptions to

consider and overall effect on the performance ratings. Greenberg and Colquitt, (2005)

referred to use of fairness theory to explain the underlying mechanisms regarding the

justice / injustice perceptions and argued that the employees their justice information at

the first encounter, irrespective of considering its nature as procedural, distributive,

interpersonal, or informational. The fairness theory evaluates the justice perception about

event by determining the accountability of injustice perception and blame someone to

either supervisor or organization and secondly the counterfactual thinking are important.

So at the failure of developmental purposes the individual may perceive and injustice

perception. So the thеory and literature suggests that

Hypothesis 5(b):

Perceived development purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice

perceptions.

91

2.1.14 Strategic Purposes Failure and Injustice Perception:

Strategic purposefulness also called “system maintenance” includes personnel planning,

identifying organizational training needs, assessing goal achievement, evaluating

personnel systems, strengthening power, structure, and determining organizational

development needs. The research shows that the strategic problems are considered the

utmost essential, as such purposes clarifies the need of evaluation systems and helps to

form strategies that are necessary to launch an unbiased, compulsory, challenging,

effectively planned, valued and organized system aimed to evaluate the employees’

performance (Palaiologos, et al., 2011; Wright, 2004) Similarly, in the contemporary

research on the purpose of performance evaluation (Iqbal MZ, 2012), two key uses of the

purpose of a performance assessment strategy are demonstrated: through identification,

Establish and achieve a useful relationship between organizational goals and personal

goals, and influence employee perceptions of the organization’s important goals. Second,

the strategic purpose of performance evaluation is to guide managers to address legal

issues such as anti-discrimination laws and facilitate them to ensure the compliance of

employment laws like equal employment opportunities.

In addition, the organization's resource-based view (Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001;

Barney, 1991) confronted traditional company views from strategic perspective on macro

level. This view holds that the company's competitive advantage depends on the value of

92

resources, scarcity, hard to imitate and hard to substitute alternatives. Effectively

establishing a performance appraisal system can divert employees' attention to fairness

and fairness and motivate employees to improve performance (Mulvaney, McKinney, &

Grodsky, 2012).

Research shows that employees' justice perceptions and accuracy in the process of

performance appraisal are the result of the determination of assessment frequency goals,

and the supervisor’s knowledge of the performance appraisal process and subordinate

responsibilities (Landy et al., 1978, 1980). Similarly, if the literature focuses on

employee development and his performance improvement (Dipboye & Pontbriand,

1981), then the literature will obviously increase employee satisfaction and higher

assessment acceptance. As research shows that strategic purposes are related to employee

justice perceptions so a failure in achievement of strategic purposes of performance

appraisal will lead toward injustice.

The Greenberg’s model of justice perception is important to explain the relationship in

variables under observation. The model explains the structural and social components of

performance appraisal in relation to different dimensions of organizational justice. The

first type is systematic-procedural that explains the justice perceptions based on

Leventhal (1980) criteria for rater selection, set the performance appraisal criteria, getting

the PA information, and pursuing the appeals. Research shows the unfair perception are

developed based on biasness, incorrect appraisals, not representative of rater’s

performance and inconsistency of outcomes (see. Greenberg, 1993). For the configural

justice the ratees build injustice perception at the failure of strategic performance

93

appraisal purposes considering the PA norms (equity, equality, need and status) and

raters’ personal objectives (inflate ratings, political pressures or favourtisim). Thе social

domain explains the formation of injustice perception based on supervisor’s sensitivity

towards employee and the level of respect shown in appraisal treatment. The

informational-social justice / injustice might necessitate the provision of performance

related information to the employee and should have a voice. If performance appraisal is

not perceive strategically accurate, from all of above discussed perspective there may be

an injustice perception. As Colquitt, (2015) explained that overall justice perceptions

represent all events in aggregation. Similarly fairness theory postulates the relationship

on the basis of accountability (as it determines when an authority should held accountable

for injustice) and counterfactual thinking on the basis of three criteria, should, could, and

would. The “should “the situation may be better if other outcomes were opted. “Could”

thinking involved the authority have selected the alternative feasible method and “would”

is the moral and ethical evaluation of decision. After evaluating the strategic purposes of

performance appraisal through fairness theory, an individual forms the injustice

perceptions. In addition to the literature support, the theory can also be used to build the

hypothesis.

Hypothesis 5(c):

Perceived strategic purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice perceptions.

2.1.15 Role Definition Purposes Failure and Injustice Perception:

94

The purpose of the role definition is also known as position focusing (Cleveland,

Murphy, & Williams, 1989; Jawahar, 2007). Performance elements include not only

abilities and motivations but also individuals’ clear understanding of what they expect.

This social information is defined as a role definition that describes the degree of

openness of important role behavior in organizational settings by identifying work tasks

that are no longer needed and areas of assessment that need to exceed current job

requirements (Youngcourt, Leiva, Jones, 2007). This kind of performance evaluation

helps employees fully understand the inherent advantages and disadvantages of their

positions and roles (Hanley & Nguyen, 2005; Law & Tam, 2008). Role-defining goals

are useful for the entire organization because the information collected through the PA

can show an increase or decrease in the number of jobs in the breadth of the role,

indicating that more or fewer resources should be allocated (Plaiologos et al., 2011).

Therefore, performance evaluation decisions and references to personal validity are also

related to the effectiveness of the entire job (DeNisi, 2000; Murphy & Cleveland, 1992).

Studies have shown that the fairness of the performance evaluation process drives interest

rates to perform well. If interest rates consider the process of performance evaluation to

be unfair (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007), they will not show good performance.

Therefore, this argument shows that this study assumes that there is a significant

relationship between the failure of the definition of purpose and the perception of

injustice for the entire organization. The information collected through the PA can show

how different roles increase or decrease in breadth, indicating that more or less resources

should be allocated (Plaiologos et al., 2011). Therefore, the performance evaluation

95

decisions and their references to the individual's in-service effectiveness are also related

to the effectiveness of the entire job (DeNisi, 2000; Murphy & Cleveland, 1992).

The taxonomy of justice perception applied by Greenberg (1993) in the context of

performance appraisal assumes that the justice perceptions are formed using structural

and social domain of performance appraisal in relation to all four types of organizational

justice. The theory postulates that the structural and configural justice follows the basic

principles of procedural (Leventhal’s criteria) and distributive criteria (equity, and

personal goals of rater). Whereas interpersonal and informational justice assumptions are

were used to explain the social perspective of performance appraisal. As the previous

literature shows that role definition purposes failure occurs if the performance appraisal

lacks to allocate or communicate the job roles to the employee. Collins, in (2000)

established that role ambiguity and performance are negatively correlated, which has a

high degree of task interdependence and independence over task-relatedness. When the

role ambiguity is high, there is enough space to explain the job requirements, causing

similar sets of people to show different standards, resulting in a decrease in performance

(Sluss et al., 2011; Burney & Widener, 2007; Yun, Takeuchi & Liu, 2007). When the

ratee perceives injustice regarding the role definition purposes, he may form the injustice

perceptions of performance appraisal in aggregation to all justice types and events

(Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Fairness theory is a second framework used to explain the

hypothesis as role definition purposefulness failure will triggers the individual to held

accountable the supervisor or organization entering in three counterfactual thinking

should could and would. These thinking evaluates the causes of failure and provides the

96

justice relevant explanation of failure to form the overall injustice perception. The

fairness theory is consistent with the Colquitt’s (2012) latent model of justice that

considers all dimensions of justice in an integrative manner to form the justice

perceptions. So lying upon this argument there is a significant positive relationship

between role definition purposes failure and injustice perception

Hypothesis 5(d):

Perceived role definition purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice

perceptions.

2.1.16 Injustice perception and in-role Performance and Retaliation

Organizational injustice rises stress at workplace and influences psychometric, physical,

and behavioral responses of employees (Elovainio et al., 2002). Previous studies have

revealed that extent of uncertainty or poor access on control and adverse changes not only

influences the perceptions of employees about what they think is fair, but also affects

their response to fairness (Lind, 2001; van den Bos, 2001).. The previous research shows

that justice / injustice perceptions are positively / negatively related with important

organizational attitudes and behaviors comprising organizational commitment,

citizenship behavior, trust in management counterproductive work behavior, and task

performance (Colquitt, 2012; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). The

current study suggests whether the overall sense of injustice becomes stronger when the

situation is considered unjust (ie when working hours are low or when people think

changes in work are mainly negative) and a stronger predictor of retaliation.

97

Based on Greenberg’s (1993) taxonomy of justice perception, research suggests that

when the employees opinion towards the structural and social impacts on performance

appraisal decisions and procedures is positive there will be a fairness perception, and in

repose employee will display positive attitudes toward the appraisals and its

purposefulness. However, problems or perceived failure in achieving performances

appraisal purposefulness failure will increase the individual’s frustration and

dissatisfaction among employees for the performances appraisal system, supervisor, and

appraisal outcomes (Thurston, 2001). Fairness theory also suggests that in response to

overall injustice perceptions employee may display the negative behaviors and attitudes

(Colquitt, 2012; Colquitt, 2015)

For the above reasons, we assume:

Hypothesis 6(a):

Overall Injustice has a negative relationship with in-role performance.

Hypothesis 6(b):

Overall Injustice has a positive relationship with retaliation.

2.1.17 Overall injustice perception as a mediator:

Bulk of literature on organizational justice theory offers a theoretical framework for

conceptualizing the justice perceptions of employees about appraisal system (Greenberg,

2004; Cropanzano & Folger, 1996; Greenberg, 1986; Dipboye & dePontbraind, 1981).

This study inclined to examine that the employee draw injustice understandings from

98

fair/unfair perception about resource allocation comparative to other employees in

organizations. The organizations are supposed to successfully achieve performance

appraisal objectives (i.e. administrative, developmental, strategic, and role definition) and

In performance appraisal context, A well working appraisal system is an outcome of

efficient work, thoughtful, and intellectual planning; particularly used in combination

when the administrative, developmental, and strategic requirements of the firm are

anticipated (Caruth & Humphreys, 2008). Usually, the organizational justice theory

considers injustice as a key stressor and emotive tiredness, specifically, is one from the

maximum proximate responses to the apparent lack of justice (Cole, Bernerth, Walter, &

Holt, 2010).

Previous research also inclined to examine justice as a mediator among different attitudes

and behaviors such as such as Clercq, Haq, & Azeem, (2018) tested Employees'

informational unfairness beliefs as mediator between dispositional envy and job

performance. The procedural justice examined as mediator between “promotion

decision”, “commitment” and “intention to leave” through SEM (structural equation

modeling) using a sample of (156 managers and executives) in two subsidiaries of

international chemical firm (Bagdadli, Roberson & Paoletti, 2006). The results depict that

“promotion decisions” influence the feelings of organizational commitment through

perceptions of procedural justice in promotion decision-making processes. Saad and

Elshaer, (2017) argued that lower distributive justice of performance appraisal mediates

the negative relationship between organizational politics and validity of layoff decisions.

99

Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001) tested the distributive, procedural, and interactional

justice as a mediator using 190 studies as a sample, comprising of 64,757 participants and

establish the difference between three types of justice among organizational outcomes,

organizational practices and perceiver characteristics and performance, extra role

behavior, counterproductive work behavior, attitudes, and behaviors. The results showed

Job performance and counterproductive work behaviors measured as consequences of

perceived justice, were mainly related to procedural justice while distributive and

procedural justice predicts the organizational citizenship behavior. Kim and Kim (2013)

found a partial mediation between procedural justice between transformational leadership

and organizational emotional commitment in a sample of full-time employees in local

government in South Korea. Gillet, Fouquereau and Bonnaud-Antignac (2013) studied

distributive justice and interactive justice by cross-sectionalizing a sample of 343 nurses

from 47 different units in France to fully mediate the link between transformational

leadership and participants' quality of life. Although different dimensions of justice have

proved to be useful, researchers have recently pointed out the value of looking at the

overall judgments brought about by employee summative work experience (Ambrose &

Schminke, 2009; Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Colquitt, 2012; Rupp, 2011). Therefore,

employees can integrate different types of judicial information into the overall judicial

decision, and use early judicial information to replace and assist in interpreting later

judicial information, regardless of whether the previous information involves procedural,

distributive or interactive aspects (Proudfoot & Lind , 2015; van den Bos, 2015) or from

different sources of justice (Rupp, 2011). According to Colquitt (2012), the concept of

100

overall justice has theoretical and empirical advantages because it “clearly captures the

employee's 'unfair!' response.” Therefore, in this study we consider an integrated

perspective of perceived organizational justice / injustice to judge the employee’s justice /

injustice perceptions for this study. According to the Greenberg taxonomy of justice

perceptions the different taxonomies (e.g. structural-procedural, structural-configural,

social-procedural and informational) evaluates the employee perceptions on the basis of

various justice criteria including equity perceptions and rater’s personal objectives are

used to evaluate the configural justice, Leventhal’s (1980) criteria for procedural justice

is used to form the structural procedural justice. For the social justice sensitivity and

respect is used informational perspective explains the performance appraisal failure based

on low voice / participation in the performance appraisal process. Bulk of research shows

the evidence of negative justice perceptions in response to inappropriate performance

appraisal (that fails to meet its purposes) and according to Greenberg and Colquitt,

(2005), and Colquitt, (2015; 2012) such injustice perceptions may lead to negative

organizational outcomes (e.g. lower in-role performance and retaliation for this study).

Fairness theory by Folger and Cropanzano, also supports the assumption of holding the

accountable to supervisor or organization in repose to the occurrence of an unjust event

and this event is further evaluated on should, could and would counterfactuals. In these

counterfactual, the employee considers forms the injustice perceptions, which may

eventually leads negative organizational outcomes (Colquitt, 2012; 2015). On the basis of

above literature and theory, it is suggested that overall injustice serves as mediator in

performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation. As

101

a mediator in performance appraisal, there are relatively few studies trying to examine the

sense of injustice. However, no previous attempt has been made to discuss the concept of

justice as a mediator between the failure of performance appraisal, job performance and

retaliation.

Hypothesis 7(a):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived administrative

purposes failure and in-role performance.

Hypothesis 7(b):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation between perceived administrative

purposes failure and retaliation

Hypothesis 8(a):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived development


Hypothesis 8(b):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation between perceived development

purposes failure and retaliation.

Hypothesis 9(a):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived strategic purposes

failure and in-role performance and retaliation.

102

Hypothesis 9(b):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation between perceived strategic purposes

failure and retaliation.

Hypothesis 10(a):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived role definition


Hypothesis 10(b):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation between perceived role definition

purposes failure and retaliation.

2.1.18 Perceived organizational support as moderator:

Eisenberg et al. (1986) defined perceptual organizational support as the employee’s

perceptions or considerations about the extent to which organizations value their

contributions and care for employee benefits. Erdogan and Anders (2007) pointed out

"Perceived organizational support refer the individuals believes in the organization's

interest in his / her contributions, values his / her opinions, and helps and supports him /

her". Several types of research have linked the perceived organizational support with

organizational justice theory e.g. Shore and Shore (1995) argued that both distributive

and procedural justice contributes to Perceived Organizational Support. In a recent

meta-Analysis, Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) stated that organizational support

103

involves encouraging reward opportunities, help to connect a progressive assessment of

employees. They refer the study of Greenberg, (1990), in which workers were inquired to

estimate the fairness of their outcomes relative to a reference group (i.e., distributive

justice). Similarly, Moorman et al. (1998) suggested that workers belief in procedural

justice contributed to higher levels of perceived organizational support. In another study,

Wayne et al. (2002) found that both procedural justice and distributive justice perceptions

were positively related to perceived organizational support. Rhoades et al. (2001) found

that employee evaluations of favorable organizational rewards and procedural justice

were both antecedents of POS. Similarly, Muse and Stamper (2007) classify the

perceived organizational support into two concepts: POS-J (Care for Employee Outcomes

and Performance) and POS-R (Care for Employee Benefits and Respect). Both of these

structures affect the employee's view of the organization's support.

Current research has proposed that perceived organizational support also moderates the

relation between performance appraisal purposes failure and overall perception of

injustice. For example, Tekleab, Takeuchi & Tylor (2005) noted that justice perceptions

about fair treatment are proposed to create more rapid and open ended exchange

relationships. Such relationships yield employee obligations to pay back to his supervisor

and organization. it’s simply not what is promised to the individuals, but somewhat,

whatever is provided to the person, which defines the power of the socio-emotional tie

called Perceived Organizational Support. We selected organizational fairness because it

is widely considered a fundamental aspect of employees’ experience that makes an

104

important contribution to POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). When employees

perceive that they are receiving fair treatment in comparison to their coworkers, they

perceive more support. Perceived organizational support is related to developmental

experiences such as formal and informal training and a number of promotions received

(Wayne et al. 1997). Lind (2001b) points out that although individuals can be

distinguished their experience of justice from the source of when asked to do so, the drive

is a sense of overall justice. Similarly, Shapiro (2001) finds that unjust victims respond to

their unfair experiences.

Literature showed that Perceived organizational support serves as a strong predictor of

organizational justice as Erdogan, 2002 argued that when employee experience his first

performance appraisal, the organizational support perceptions have already been formed

by him. Existing literature shows that perceived organizational support is also a

consequence of organizational justice (Masterson etal, 2000). Many researches have

studied perceived organizational support as moderator. Van Schlkwyk et al.(2011)

suggest that POS moderates in the relationship between experiences of bullying by

superiors and turnover intention. As studies have found that employees with high POS

suffer less stress at work and are more inclined to return to work sooner after injury

(Shaw et al., 2013); perceived organizational support

(POS) moderates in the relationship between stressors and citizenship behavior. (Jain,

Giga, & Cooper, 2013). POS acts as moderator between Job Scope and Affective

Commitments (Marchand & Vandenberghe, 2014). Kawai and Mohr (2015) found that

perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support moderated the

105

relationship between role novelty and job satisfaction. Similarly, Rineer, Truxillo,

Bodner, Hammer, and Kraner, (2017) has tested POS as moderator between justice and

objective measures of cardiovascular health.

According to organizational justice theory if organization fulfills these purposes of

performance appraisal, the employees they will have better justice perceptions. when

individuals have a positive exchange with the organization, they may expect the

organizational procedures to be fair (Erdogan, 2002). This expectation may influence

later justice perceptions, by making individuals attend to cues that suggest fairness, and

ignore the cues that suggest unfairness. So when organization successfully implement the

performance appraisal purposes, POS will be positively affected and weaken the injustice

perception but on the other side, organizational failure to achieve the appraisal purposes

(administrative, developmental, role definition and strategic), foster the feelings of

injustice and perceived organizational support may moderate this type of relationship.

Fasolo (1995) noted that distributive and procedural justice dimensions of performance

appraisals described the distinctive change in Perceived organizational support when the

other type of justice (either procedural or distributive) was controlled for.

The fairness theory postulates that performances appraisal purposes failure motivates the

individual to blame the authority responsible for the unfair distribution of reward.

Because supervisors act as agents of the organization, who have responsibility for

directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance, employees would view their

supervisor’s favorable or unfavorable orientation toward them as indicative of the

106

organization’s support (Eisenberger et al., 2002). so normally the employee considers

supervisor responsible for the failure and look for the support from organization.

Similarly, injustice perceptions formed based on fairness theory may be controlled using

the POS as moderator between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice

perceptions. Both of theory and literature suggests that:

Hypothesis 11(a):

POS will moderate the relation between perceived administrative purposefulness failure

and overall injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee with low

perceived organizational support than the individual feeling high organizational support.

Hypothesis 11(b):

POS will moderate the relation between perceived developmental purposefulness failure



Hypothesis 11(c):

POS will moderate the relation between perceived strategic purposefulness failure and

overall injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee with low


Hypothesis 11(d):

107

POS will moderate the relation between perceived role-definition purposefulness failure



THEORETICAL FRAME WORK:

Drawing upon the Justice Theory and previous studies of performance appraisal

purposefulness, justice and perceived organizational support, researcher established an

integrated model for this research. The following is demonstrating the anticipated

relationships among selected variables for this research. The model proposes that if the

employee perceives performance appraisal purposefulness failure, he may have a

negative justice perception about the various performance appraisal purposes, which

consequently leads toward negative behaviors and will influence employee in-role

performance and will foster the employee retaliation in a work setting. Additionally, the

model postulates that the perceived organizational support may change the harmful

influences of perceived performance appraisal purposes failure on injustice perceptions

and on its further behavioral consequences.

108

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

3. CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research used survey technique to study the potential link between Performance

appraisal purposefulness failure, injustice perception, In-role performance, and retaliation

and the way perceived organizational support moderates the links among performance

appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perception.

The target respondents of the survey were cadre civil servants across occupational groups

who receive appraisals from their superiors. This study aimed to measure the

hypothesized relationship among different variables at two times. First, the data was

collected using survey method at time1 in July, 2017 1(N=400) and at Time 2 November,

Performance

appraisal

purposefulness

failure

Perceived

administrative

purposes failure

Perceived

developmental

purposes failure

Perceived strategic

purposes failure

Perceived role

definition purposes

failure

Injustice

Perception

Perceived

organizational

support

In-Role

Performance

Retaliation

Independent

Variables

Dependent

variables

Mediator

Moderator

109

2017 (N=400) with a difference of 03 months as Sims and Szilagyi in (1979) suggested a

time lag of 3-6 months might be more appropriate in leader reward behavior research.

According to the Chen and Agrawal (2017) methodology, At time one, data was

collected for the demographics, independent variables i.e. administrative purposefulness

failure, developmental purposefulness failure, strategic purposefulness failure and role

definition purposefulness failure and moderating variable (perceived organizational

support). At time two, responses for mediating variable (overall injustice perception) and

for outcome variables (In-role performance and retaliation) were gathered. The reason for

collecting data for only two times is that the respondents of outcome variables were

different form the respondents reporting for injustice as the outcome variables were peer

reported.

For the two waves (T1 and T2), questionnaires were sent to 400 civil servants across 12

occupational groups and a total 380 usable questionnaires were returned (95% response

rate) for both times. As the data for dependent variables in-role performance and

retaliation is necessary to be collected from the peers of earlier respondents so to gain

the reliable information, it is assured they know each other and working at the same

place. However, the data for injustice perceptions (Mediator) is also collected from the

same respondents from which data for IV and moderator was collected.

The various selected items of the survey reflect the questions aimed to measure the

different dimensions of the extracted variables. The study uses self-administered survey

110

to inquire about the perceptions and understandings of people on an extensive set of

problems. The questionnaire was prepared in English and administered by the researcher.

Each questionnaire contained a cover letter explaining the main objective of the study

that assure the respondents about research is volunteer and responses will be kept

confidential. appropriate statistical technique is used to analyze the data.

RESEARCH DESIGN:

Time-lag design is of most interest to social psychologists. Schaie (1965) defined a time-

lag design as testing whether "different sample features exist in a sample of the same

period and different samples are measured at different times." In other words, only one

age is studied, but across different cohorts at different times. Cook and Campbell (1979)

also define time-lag design as a single sample design. Therefore, it is also confused by

differences of generations or groups. According to Schaie (1970), the time-lag approach

aims to measure cultural change but confounds environmental treatment or normative

historic-graded impact with simultaneous differences.

A bulk of literature provides evidence for time lag design like (Chung, 2018; Rode &

colleagues 2017; Chen & Agrawal 2017; Chênevert, et al. 2013). Thus, in light of

existing literature and to support the operational design, the study collected the data at

time-1 for independent variable performance appraisal purposefulness failure

(administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition) and moderating (perceived

organizational support) Time 2 of mediator (overall injustice) and for two of

organizational outcome variables (in-role performance, retaliation) as was studied by

111

(Marchand & Vandenberghe, 2014). Moreover, in-role performance and retaliation data

was collected from coworkers (peer reported data).

POPULATION OF STUDY:

This research aimed to collect data from public sector because due to privatization and

reform pressure on public sector organizations of Pakistan, the employees are facing a

continuous changing environment, increasing uncertainty and technological

breakthrough. Additionally, According to IMF Public sector companies’ loss swells to

Rs1.2tr. (2018), which shows the inefficiency of Pakistani public sector Enterprises.

Moreover, Public sector organizations can survive even with inefficient operation, while

poorly run private sector firms can go broke and end up no longer in business.

The population of this research consists on civil servants inducted through FPSC

competitive examination (2007-2013) across various occupational groups. There are

numerous reasons for selecting civil service as the unit of analysis. First, civil servants

are key personnel’s of public sector organizations. National Executive System (NES)

(proposed in 2000s), reported that there is a little focus on path breaking reform towards

the improvement of performance management system in the civil service of Pakistan.

Similarly, Haque and Khawaja (2007) found that 38% of civil servants viewed extreme

level of performance deterioration in public sector. Jabeen (2007) mentioned dissimilarity

between bureaucratic values and cultural values, as a reason of deviation of bureaucracy

from its principles like merit, impersonality, and rule of law. Politicians use bureaucracy

for their own interests instead of letting it work for the public. CSP of Pakistan has

112

adopted an elitist outlook and has not been open to reform or democratic responsiveness;

it is being perceived as inefficient, ineffective, corrupt, and rigid. Also, inadequate

remuneration and low salaries lead to corruption both at low and high levels (Jabeen &

Jadoon, 2013). It is therefore essential that reform effort be initiated given the screaming

evidence on the deficiencies in performance management system of the Civil Service of

Pakistan indicated by national conditions as well as international rankings. The civil

service is responsible for stability and progress in the country that needs to be

restructured and strengthened through a process of reform (Jabeen & Jadoon, 2013).

Therefore, it is critical to choose public sector and especially civil service as unit of

analysis rather than employees of other public and private firms. The study has selected

civil servants allocated to different occupational Group / Services between the years

2007-2013 as population. This population was most suitable for the study because only

the respondents who have evaluated either someone or being evaluated by someone may

perceive performance appraisal purposefulness failure. Most recent inductions were not

falling under the criteria and the record for induction before 2007 has limited access.

The detail of representive population for the study is given in table-1.

113

Table-1: year wise allocation of civil servants to different occupational Group / Services, 2007-2013

Year

Pakistan

Audit &

Accounts

Service

Commerce

& Trade

Group

Pakistan

Customs

Services

Pakistan

Administrative

Service

Foreign

Service

of

Pakistan

Inland

Revenue

Services

Information

Group

Military

Lands &

Cantonments

Office

Management

Group

Police

Service

of

Pakistan

Postal

Group

Railways

(C & T)

Total

2007 24 9 20 35 10 46 16 - - 15 5 180

2008 21 8 18 35 17 36 10 - - 37 3 4 189

2009 48 36 32 38 25 38 42 3 34 36 14 13 359

2010 66 44 13 36 26 39 40 15 61 15 22 11 388

2011 19 2 4 36 25 39 1 10 41 16 8 4 205

2012 23 5 6 35 12 50 14 8 54 19 7 7 240

2013 16 1 5 33 24 41 9 3 57 16 10 7 222

Total 201 104 93 215 115 248 123 36 190 138 54 44 1783

Source: FPSC Annual Reports (2007-2013)

114

SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION:

The sample is defined as a Subset or a portion of a larger group. The researcher drawn a sample

size of 400 through the finite population of 1783 civil servants with a 95% of confidence level.

because It was quite difficult to gather responses from whole of the population due to limited

access and availability of civil servants and the other is time limitation of the study.

Equation 1

𝑛 =𝑁

1 + 𝑁𝑒2

where

n = sample size

N = total population size

e = error

SAMPLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE:

The sampling process involves the selection of an appropriate number of components from the

population so that an investigation of the sample and a comprehension of its basic characteristics

or properties would make it workable for us to sum up and generalize such characteristics or

properties to all of the population components (Sekaran, 2003). The sampling methods mainly

can be categorized in probability and non-probability sampling. The probability sampling

methods include “Simple random sampling”, “systematic sampling”, “Stratified sampling”,

“cluster sampling” and “multistage sampling” and non-probability sampling includes “Quota

sampling” “purposive sampling”, “snowball sampling” and “convenience sampling”. practically,

115

some of the sampling methods labelled here might fit in one study such approach is called mixed

sampling. However, this study will use the stratified random sampling to represent managers

across different occupational groups.

Equation 2

stata =pop

N∗ n

Where

pop= total no. of employees in an occupational group

N=population size

n=sample size

through applying above formula of stratified sampling 46 civil servants will be selected from

Pakistan Audit & Accounts Service, 24 from Commerce & Trade Group, 21 from Pakistan

Customs Services, 49 from Pakistan Administrative Service, 26 from Foreign Service of

Pakistan, 56 from Inland Revenue Services, 28 from Information Group, 9 from Military Lands

& Cantonments, 43 from Office Management Group, 31 from Police Service of Pakistan, 13

from Postal Group, and 10 from Railways (C & T).

116

INSTRUMENTS:

The questionnaires selected by the investigators were based on available literature (Cleveland,

Murphy, & Williams, 1989; Jawahar, 2007; Palaiologos, Papazekos, & Panayotopoulou, 2011);

2002; Abu-Doleh & Weir; Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Pooyan & Eberhardt, Greenberg J.,

1986; Erdogan, 2002; Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, Liden & Maslyn, 1998). The final version of

the questionnaire consisted of 55 questions. The first part covers the respondent's demographic

information and the second part includes the purpose of performance appraisal, overall injustice,

role representation, retaliation and organizational support. The questionnaire will be divided

mainly into two parts to examine the essential features of the key variables in finding the links

between various selected variables. Part one will contain the demographic information of the

respondents i.e., tenure, age, gender, position, educational levels, and appraisal experience.

While Part two covers A, B, C, D, and E sections which contain the instruments aimed to

measure the selected variables. Section A pursues to quantify the performance appraisal

purposefulness (independent variable), Section B seeks to measure overall injustice Perception

(Mediating variable), Section C measures the in-role performance (dependent variable) and

Section D seeks to measure the retaliation (dependent variable) of selected sample. Next, the

Section E presents the item of perceived organizational support (Moderating variable).

3.1.1 Measurement of Perceived Performance appraisal purposefulness failure:

To Measure the various facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure, the scales of

Palaiologos, Papazekos, & Panayotopoulou, 2011; Abu-Doleh & Weir developed on the basis of

original scale of (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989) were used on seven point likert scale

from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”.

117

As there was no direct, scale available for measuring the different types of Performance appraisal

purposefulness failure. As scale which was originally designed to measure performance appraisal

purposes rather than its failure was used. The study adds failure wording to the scale of the

instrument, and adds a description of all facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure (e.g.

Administrative purposefulness failure, developmental purposefulness failure, strategic purposefulness

failure and role definition purposefulness failure) in order to increase the clarity of instrument.

Performance appraisal purposefulness failure is further described as unfair or inaccurate Salary

administration, Promotion, Retention or termination, assessment of poor performance

contributed to purposefulness failure at administrative, developmental, strategic and role

definition level. Then all items are inversely coded so that a high score on the level, ie above 4

indicates a perception of performance appraisal purposefulness failure, with a low score on the level,

i.e. less than 4 means performance appraisal purposefulness and score 4 means neither purposefulness

nor failure. The researcher felt this modification better to match the hypothesized relationship

between the study variables and reduce unnecessary complexity in interpreting and reporting the

results. Moreover, many researchers are observed to follow such practices to measure the two

perspectives of a variable on a single continuum like satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Lepold,

Tanzer, Bregenzer, & Jiménez, 2018), justice and injustice (Colquitt & colleagues, 2015; Jonson,

2008).

3.1.2 Perceived Administrative Purposefulness failure:

To measure the perceived failure of administrative purposes, the study adopted the three item

scale from the study of (Palaiologos, et al., 2011), sample items are (eg, performance evaluation

118

does not helps determine whether to promote, retain or terminate employees, "performance

evaluation" fails to decide what should be received, and whether the performance evaluation

lacks process documents and confirms the employee's performance.) The answers were collected

from a seven-point Likert scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”.. The scale

reliability of original study was 0.796.

3.1.3 Perceived Developmental Purposefulness failure:

The study used scale from (Palaiologos, et al., 2011) to measure the perception of failure

developmental purposes. These include “Performance ratings don’t let employees know where

they stand”, “Performance ratings are not used to provide feedback about employee

performance” and “Performance appraisals don’t identify individual strengths and weaknesses”.

The study measured the responses on a seven point likert scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7

“strongly agree”. The reliability of the original scale of the study was 0.784.

3.1.4 Perceived Role Definition Purposefulness failure:

To measure the failure of role definition purposes, the scale of Palaiologos, et al., (2011) was

used “Performance Appraisal does not provides information about what employees are

responsible for accomplishing”, “Performance Appraisal does not provides information that

helps make positive changes in the job itself” and “Performance Appraisal does not provides

information about what employees actually do in their jobs”. The items used to get the

responder's responses using seven-point Likert scales ranging from 1 to 7, "strongly disagree to

agree." The original study's Cronbach alpha was 0.682

119

3.1.5 Perceived Strategic Purposefulness failure:

The perceived strategic Purposefulness failure was measured using six item scale of (Cleveland,

Murphy, & Williams, 1989) validated by Abu-Doleh & Weir in (2007) on a seven-point Likert

scale from 1 to 7 “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The measurement items include (a)

“PA does not helps in doing Personnel planning”, (2) “PA does not helps in determining

organizational training needs”, (c) “PA does not helps in evaluating goal achievement”, (d) “PA

does not helps in Evaluating personnel systems”, (e) “PA does not helps in Reinforcing authority

structure”, (f) “PA does not helps in Identifying organizational development needs”.

3.1.6 Overall Injustice perception of Performance appraisal:

Although many researchers have developed scales to measure injustice (Hodson, Creighton,

Jamison, Rieble, and Welsh, 1994, Farh et al., 1997, Colquitt, 2001) but these scales emphasize

on the specific dimensions of justice rather than generalized evaluations of injustice at their

workplaces. The research used the perceived overall justice (POJ) scale developed and

confirmed by (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b) for two reasons. First, this study aims to measure

overall injustice perceptions, which are more general in nature and does not emphasis on

dimensionality. Secondly, Colquitt and his colleagues (2015) argued that justice and injustice

should be viewed as opposite ends of a single continuum, as "it seems difficult to simultaneously

view a given justice rule as both adhered to and violated". Previous literature is evident of using

justice scale to measure injustice such as Johnson, (2008) measured injustice through justice

120

scale developed by (Colquitt, 2001) on a five point likert scale. All items were inversely coded

so that a high score on the level, ie above 3 indicates a perception of injustice, with a low score

on the level, ie less than 3 means justice and score 3 means neither fair nor fair ( ibid).

Therefore, present research used overall justice instrument of Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b

includes six items to assess overall justice / injustice on two dimensions, first three measures

“individuals’ personal justice experiences” and the other three are intended to measure “fairness

of the organization in general” The Cronbach's alpha of original study was α = 0.86. The

responses were gathered on a seven point likert scale ranging from 1 to 7 “strongly disagree” to

“strongly agree”.

3.1.7 In-role Performance:

The study measured the dependent variable “in-role performance” responses form peers. In order

to obtain the responses, seven items from the Williams and Anderson scales (1991) were used.

The sample items includes “He/She fulfil all the responsibilities specified in his/her job

description”, “He/She consistently meet the formal performance requirements of his/her job” and

“He/She performs tasks that are expected of him/her “. Respondents were asked to give the

response on a seven-point likert scale by choosing their level of agreement for each item, ranging

from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The original reliability of William and

Anderson (1991) scale is 0.91.

3.1.8 Retaliation:

121

To measure the retaliation, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) used 17 item scale to assess the

responses. The peers were asked to rate their colleagues through behavioral observation scales.

These responses were gathered on a 7-point Likert-type scale and asks respondents to indicate

how often they observe their colleagues' involvement in particular behavior over the past month.

Scales ranged from 1 (never over the past month) to 5 (6 or more times over the past month).

Sample items includes “On purpose, damaged equipment or work process”, and “Wasted

company materials”. The Cronbach Alpha value of the original instrument is 0.88.

3.1.9 Perceived Organizational Support (POS):

To measure perceived organizational support, the study used eight item scale developed by

Eisenberger, R., et al. (1986), followed by the recommendations of Rhoades and Eisenberger

(2002). "Since the original scale is one-way and has a high degree of internal reliability, there is

no problem with the use of the short version. The scale consists of the item number.

1,3,7,9,17,21,23 and 27. The factor load for these items ranges from 0.71 to 0.84 (Eisenberg et

al., 1986).

DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES:

For this study, the data was collected from civil servants selected during 2007-2013 in different

occupational groups (e.g. Pakistan Audit & Accounts Service, Commerce & Trade Group,

Pakistan Customs Services, Pakistan Administrative Service, Foreign Service of Pakistan, Inland

Revenue Services, Information Group, Military Lands & Cantonments, Office Management

122

Group, Police Service of Pakistan, Postal Group, and Railways through competitive examination.

A close-ended self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) was used to measure the perception of

civil servants regarding the essence performance appraisal purposes and their outcomes.

According to Bowling (2005; 2009) and Gwaltney (2008), Self-administered survey

questionnaires are ideal for achieving a wide geographic coverage of the target population,

dealing with sensitive topics. Moreover, contemporary studies prefer self-administered surveys

due reduced cost, and speed of data collection, particularly the electronic delivery of self-

administered survey questionnaires has received considerable attention (Groves 2009; Lampe

1998; Lane 2006; Shih 2009). Lavrakas, P. (2008) referred in Encyclopedia of Survey Research

Methods that previously self-administered questionnaires were used to gather responses from

sample either in person or by mail. However, today, SAQs are being used extensively for Web

surveys, because the SAQs can be completed without ongoing feedback from the researcher.

Therefore, this research collected data from the various cities of Pakistan based upon the

availability and access to civil servants either in person or through e-mail. From Islamabad,

Lahore, Faisalabad, Jhung, Jehlum, and Sialkot, the researcher collected data in person.

However, from Karachi and Peshawar the responses were gathered through email.

For in-person self-administered questionnaires, All the respondents were individually contacted

by the researcher and was given a brief 15-minute explanation of the study design and the

purpose of the study. Afterwards, the point of contact verbally notified employees in his/her

department about the study and individually asked each employee to voluntarily participate in

the study. The participants orally consented to participate in the study. However, for email self-

123

administered questionnaires, the respondents are telephonically giving the instructions to fill out

the questionnaires. Although previous literature shows that there are potential biases by differing

mode of questionnaire administration (De Leeuw ED, van der Zouwen J., 1988; Bowling, 2005)

and categorized different modes of data collection in four major parts e.g. Face-to-face

interviews, Telephone interviews, Self-administered, postal and Self-administered, programmed,

electronic and the method used by researcher for collecting data comes under the fourth category

represents no change in mode of data collection, hence no chances of biasness.

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:

Cronbach’s Alpha is a commonly used technique to measure the internal reliability of how much

the set of items as group are closely related to each other. So questionnaire’s Cronbach’s alpha

was calculated using SPSS 20 for each of the constructs in the study. Gliem and Gliem, (2003)

explained the rule of thumb for interpreting Cronbach’s alpha is “the closer the value of α is to

1.0 the better the internal consistency of scale items in the questionnaire”. The Table-2 contains

the Cronbach’s alpha values for all of the constructs used in the study and the results indicate

that internal consistency of all constructs is good since it is closer to 1. Reliability analysis

showed that the calculated Cronbach value for Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure

(α = .840), Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure (α = .840), Perceived Strategic

purposefulness failure (α = .917), Perceived Role definition purposefulness failure (α = .873),

Overall injustice perception (α = .959), Perceived Organizational Support (α = 0.843), In-Role

Performance (α = 0.884), and Retaliation (α = 0.920) confirm strong inter item consistency of all

the constructs. Thus the cronbach’s alpha values for instruments were 0.840 or higher, which are

124

considered to be satisfactory to apply the structural equation modelling (SEM) on the data

(Bollen, 1989).

Table 2: Cronbach’s alpha (α)

Construct N of Items Cronbach's

Alpha (α)

Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure 3 .840

Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure 3 .840

Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure 6 .917

Perceived Role definition purposefulness failure 3 .873

Overall injustice perception 6 .959

Perceived Organizational Support 8 .843

In-Role Performance 7 .884

Retaliation 17 .920

0.90 Or greater=Excellent, 0.80 or greater=Good, 0 .70 or greater=Acceptable, 0.60 or greater=Questionable, 0.50 or greater=Poor, 0.50 or

less=Unacceptable

DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES:

The data was analyzed using Structural Equation modeling (SEM) technique using SPSS 20 and

Amos 20. SEM technology has unique advantages in measuring direct and indirect effects Model

validation with multiple dependent variables and using multiple regression equations

Simultaneously (Mehdi et al., 2012). Sekaran, (2003) mentioned that in data analysis we have

three objectives (e.g., getting a feel for the data; testing the goodness of data, and testing the

hypotheses developed for the research). Similarly, Mulaik (2000) and Mulaik Scarpi (2006)

proposed a three-step approach to analyze the data, therefore the study analyzed the data

according to this approach.

125

1 - Establish a common factor analysis of each potential variable

2- Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Measurement Model)

3- Testing a Structure Model.

Common factor analysis is importantly helps to select the appropriate variable that essentially

describe the underlying construct. To examine the common factor analysis correlation and

Cronbach alphas were calculated. Next the Confirmatory Factor Analysis was done to measure

the validity of the variables of the study and lastly the direct and indirect effects were studied

using structural Equation Modeling (SEM). It helps to Analyze the regression weights and p-

values for the variables and its fit indices like relative chi-square (CMIN / DF), GFI, AGFI CFI

and RMSEA, SRMR. Hu and Bentley (1998, 1999) recommend reporting at least one absolute

fitness index and an incremental fitness index in addition to X2. Therefore, six global fit indices

were reviewed to assess model fit: X2, standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR), robust

root mean square residuals (RMSEA), and robust comparison fit index (CFI) NFI.

126

Figure 2: Threshold values for model fit indices

4. CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS:

Demographic analysis allows a researcher to measure different characteristics and dimensions of

population. This study has selected “Occupational group”, “Total experience”, “current job

experience”, “Age”, “Gender”, and “Education” as demographic variables.

Table-3 presents the details of gender of target respondents. The table shows that total numbers

of respondents were 380 from which 84.7% (322) were male and 15.3% (58) were female.

127

Table 3: Gender detail of respondents

Frequency Percent

Male 322 84.7

Female 58 15.3

Total 380 100.0

Table-4 shows that the respondent’s age ranged from below 25 to above 46 years (Below 25

years old=1, 25 – 30 years old=2, 31 – 35 years old=3, 36 – 40 years old=4, 41 – 45 years old=5,

46 years old and above=6) with the age group 31-35 years reported the highest percentage 50%

with 190 respondents, followed by 46.1 (175) having the age group 36-40 years, 2.9% (11) fall in

age group 41-45 years and 1.1% (4) were in the age range from 25-30 years.

Table 4: Age detail of respondents

Frequency Percent

25-30 years 4 1.1

31-35 years 190 50.0

36-40 years 175 46.1

41-45 years 11 2.9

Total 380 100.0

The occupational groups statistics in Table-5 shows that IRS having the largest proportionate of

respondents 15.30% (58), followed by 13.20% (50) from PAAS, 12.90% (49) from PAS, 11.10%

(42) from OMG, 9.70% (37) from IG, 8.40% (32) were from PSP, FSP having a percentage of

128

7.40% (28), C&TG have 6.30% (24) respondents, for PCS, the proportionate is 5.50% (21),

4.50% (17) from postal group and 2.90% (11) for Railways.

Table 5: Table representing the proportionate of Occupational Groups

Frequency Percent

C&TG 24 6.3

FSP 28 7.4

IG 37 9.7

IRS 58 15.3

ML&C 11 2.9

OMG 42 11.1

PAAS 50 13.2

PAS 49 12.9

PCS 21 5.5

Postal Group 17 4.5

PSP 32 8.4

Railways 11 2.9

Total 380 100.0 C&TG=Commerce & Trade Group, FSP= Foreign Service of Pakistan, IG= Information Group, IRS= Inland Revenue Services, ML&C=

Military Lands & Cantonments, OMG= Office Management Group, PAAS=Pakistan Audit & Accounts Service, PAS= Pakistan Administrative

Service, PCS=Pakistan Customs Services, PSP=Police Service of Pakistan

Table-6 shows the qualification details of target respondents. Most of our respondents having

Master (16 years) qualification 73.20% (278), 26.10% (99) were M.Phil, only 0.80% (3) have

reported Bachelor level of qualification (B.A / BSc) and no respondent fall in the PhD category.

Table 6: Qualification Details of Respondents

Frequency Percent

Bachelor 3 .8

Master 278 73.2

M.Phil 99 26.1

Total 380 100.0 1=Bachelor, 2=Master, 3=M.Phil. and 4=Ph.D.

129

Table-7 reports the experience in two categories total experience and current job experience, for

total experience, most of the respondents in the range of 5-9 years 59.50%(226), 25.50% (97)

respondents have experience within 0-4 years, 14.50% (55) fall in the 10-14 years range and

only 0.5% (2) have the experience from 15-19 years. 47.40% (180) respondents for Current job

experiences stand in the range between 5-9 years, followed by 46.60% (177) from 0-4 years

range, 3.20%(12) have 10-14 years’ experience and lastly 2.90% (11) have 15-19 years of

current job experience.

Table 7: Total Experience and Current job Experience

Frequency Percent

Total Experience

0-4 years 97 25.5

5-9 years 226 59.5

10-14 years 55 14.5

15-19 years 2 .5

Total 380 100.0

Current

Experience

0-4 years 177 46.6

5-9 years 180 47.4

10-14 years 12 3.2

15-19 years old 11 2.9

Total 380 100.0

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR RESEARCH VARIABLES

Results in table-8 indicate that maximum mean (5.58) is for PSPF followed by (5.55) for PAPF,

RD contains third highest vale (M=5.49), mean (5.48) represents PRDPF, mean value for PDPF

is (5.43) stands at fifth highest level, next largest mean (5.16) is for OIP, IRD shows a mean

value (2.86), and the lowest mean (2.85) is for POS.

130

CORRELATION ANALYSIS:

Table-8 depicts the correlation results between main variables used in this study. The correlation

results shows negative and significant relationship between independent (PAPF=Perceived

Administrative purposefulness failure, PDPF=Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure,

PSPF=Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure, PIRPF=Perceived Role definition

purposefulness failure) and dependent variable In-role performance (r = -.396**, p < .001), (r = -

.397**, p < .001), (r = -.402**, p < .001), (r = -.373**, p < .001) respectively. Similarly all the

independent variables (PAPF=Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure, PDPF=Perceived

Developmental purposefulness failure, PSPF=Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure,

PIRPF=Perceived Role definition purposefulness failure) have a positive significant correlation

with second dependent variable Retaliation (r = .213**, p < .001), (r = .192**, p < .001), (r =

.171**, p < .001), (r = .207**, p < .001) respectively.

There is negative and significant correlation, between Overall injustice perception and In-role

performance(r = -.285**, p < .001) and positive and significant relation with retaliation (r =

.211**, p < .001). Whereas perceived organizational support is positively correlated with In-role

performance (r = -.278**, p < .001) and negatively with retaliation (r = -.134**, p < .001).

Negative correlation depicts an indirect relationship among two variables, one of which increases

while the other decreases and vice versa.

A higher correlation (r > 0.10) confirms high positive and significant correlation between

independent variables (PAPF, PDPF, PSPF, PRDPF) and mediator (OIP), with dependent

131

variables as (IRD and RD) at p < .05, whereas POS has a negative significant correlation (r=-

.279, p < .005) with OIP.

132

Table 8: Results for descriptive statistics and Correlation Matrix

M SD PAPF PDPF PSPF PIRPF OIP POS IRD RD

PAPF Perceived administrative purposefulness failure 5.55 1.06 1(.84)

PDPF Perceived developmental purposefulness failure 5.58 1.07 .762** 1(.84)

PSPF Perceived strategic purposefulness failure 5.43 1.02 .757** .836** 1(.91)

PIRPF Perceived role definition purposefulness failure 5.48 1.10 .698** .734** .773** 1(.87)

OIP Overall injustice perception 5.16 1.22 .558** .619** .611** .596** 1(.95)

POS Perceived organizational support 2.85 0.96 -.451** -.445** -.463** -.427** -.279** 1(.84)

IRD In-role performance 2.86 0.82 -.396** -.397** -.402** -.373** -.285** .278** 1(.88)

RD Retaliation 5.49 0.83 .213** .192** .171** .207** .211** -.134** .-.077 1(.92)

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note: N=380, Alpha reliabilities given in parenthesis.

133

HYPOTHESES TESTING:

The study postulated to examine the relationship among the selected variables. As Hypothesis-2(a)

predicted that Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice

perceptions, Hypothesis 2(b) predicted Perceived development purposes failure is positively related

to overall injustice perceptions, Hypothesis 2(c) predicted Perceived strategic purposes failure is

positively related to overall injustice perceptions and Hypothesis 2(d) predicted Perceived role

definition purposes failure is positively related to overall injustice perceptions. All the above

hypothesis were tested using the SEM analysis in Amos 20.

SEM is an integral strategy as regression, because it evaluates the model from different

perspectives. SEM researchers can find theories, how to be structurally theoretically linked, and

guidance of meaningful relationships. Previous studies have suggested that SEM is a measurement

model that defines the number of factors, related to the reasons related to the various indicators and

related errors (such as the CFA model). ; And the other is a structural model which indicates how

things related to (e.g., direct or indirect effect, unrelated) (Lei and Wu, 2007); It is also proposed

that before analyzing structural models, SEM researchers must analyze the measuring models

(Thompson, 2004).

4.1.1 Pre SEM assumption

During the data screening, the following data treatment tests were conducted to clean the data:

1- Missing Values detection in data - to detect the responses with missing values

2- Test for normality- to find out any out lawyer values

134

3- Multivariate assumptions

a. Linearity

b. Multicolinearity

c. Homo /heteroscedasticity

4.1.1.1 Test for Missing Values:

Responses with missing values were identified using SPSS 20 and found no missing value in data

4.1.1.2 Test for normality:

Data screening was done to check the normality and skewness in Amos, which is found in range. A

distribution is considered as normal if it has skewness indices of less than three and kurtosis value

being less than 10 (Tong, 2007).

4.1.1.3 Test of Multivariate assumptions

The assumption of linearity was tested by measuring deviation from linearity test available in the

ANOVA test in SPSS. If the Sig value for Deviation from Linearity is less than 0.05, the

relationship between IV and DV is not linear, and thus is problematic. However, all relationships

between IV and DV are found to be linear for this study. The absence of multicolinearity was

checked using VIF values. As results depicted each value is below 10, indicating that the

assumption is met. The scatterplot of the residuals showed that values are equally distributed so this

assumption also met.

4.1.2 Tests of Measurement Models:

135

The measurement model explains the relation among observed and un-observed variables. It links

the measured values of the measuring instrument (i.e. the variables of the observed index) and the

infrastructure. Therefore, the measurement model represents Confirmation Factor Analysis (CFA)

by assigning a model loaded on a specific factor for each metric. It focuses on the verification of

the model and does not explain the relationship between the structures. Shows how to combine the

measured variables to display the structure and use it for verification and reliability testing. In other

words, CFA is the way that test measurement variables represent specific structures. The CFA's

goal is twofold:

1) Confirmed a hypothetical factor structure

2) It is used as a verification method in the measurement model

To check the robustness of each element of the scale, we used the analysis of the confirmation

factors with AMOS SPSS. Although the study allowed to construct an authentic investigation with

constructions well-validated. But, to validate the scale in a particular analysis of the context factor,

was applied. The reduction of variables in the CFA measurement model was modified with the

two-stage model of Kline (2005).

4.1.2.1 Validation of the Measurement Model: Psychometric Checks

To validate the measurement model the acceptable levels of quality were established and the search

for specific proof of construct validity were achieved. Validity explains to what degree the selected

data collection method is measuring the concept in an accurate manner for which it aimed to

136

measure (Saunders and Thornhill, 2003). In order to comply with the validity and reliability

processes, the Convergent validity, Composite Reliability, Discriminant validity measures were used.

Composite reliability (CR):

Previous studies showed that the coefficient of Cronbach alpha sometimes underrates the data

reliability, thus it recommends the measurement of composite reliability (Raykov 1997). The

composite reliability also known as the “construct reliability”. Hair et al. (2010) has set a threshold

value for composite or construct validity upto 0.7, whereas Awang (2012) set the threshold value at

0.6.

To obtain the Convergent validity Xiong et al. (2015) referred that with a significant regression

weight (< 0.05), and entire values of standardized regression coefficient and correlations results

should be (>0.5 and 0.25) respectively. On the other hand, according to Awang, (2012) the average

extracted variance (AVE) of all constructs should be (> 0.5), and the value of CR (composite

reliability) must rather have higher value than AVE. The discriminant validity requires that there

should be a dissimilarity in constructs of the model and the main tests include: (1) the AVE value

of a given construct should be better than maximum squared correlation of all constructs (Xiong et

al., 2015; Hon et al., 2013); (2) AVE must be better from ASV (shared mean variance); (3) the

AVE’s square root for given construction must be better than the coefficient of correlation between

the selected and other constructs (Xiong et al., 2015); (4) AVEs of two constructions must be

greater than the variance shared between the two constructs; and (5) the correlation between

exogenous constructions must be less than 0.85. 2015; Awang 2012); (4) AVEs value of two

constructs must be better from the mutual variance between constructs; and (5) the value of

137

correlation coefficient between exogenous constructs must be (< 0.85). Testing for correlation also

verifies the absence/lack of multicollinearity in the data under observation (Awang 2012).

The ASV presents the average values of squared correlation for the variable in relation to all other

constructs. The study calculated this value using correlation coefficient of constructs found by

Confirmatory Factor Analysis. MSV represents the maximum quadratic correlations value of a

construct in relation to all other. It is also known as the highest quadratic correlation. For the

purpose of this study, the construct validity, convergent and divergent or discriminant validities

were calculated using the stats tool package of Dr. James Gaskin as reported in table-9.

Table 9: Reliability and validity measures for sub-sample.

Constructs CR AVE MSV ASV

overall

injustice

In-role

Performance Retaliation PA purposes

Org.

support

Overall injustice 0.908 0.625 0.504 0.213 0.791

In-role

Performance 0.871 0.499 0.393 0.187 -0.418 0.706

Retaliation 0.935 0.461 0.102 0.063 0.276 -0.207 0.679

PA purposes 0.984 0.940 0.504 0.319 0.710 -0.627 0.319 0.969

Org. support 0.889 0.504 0.278 0.135 -0.313 0.369 -0.171 -0.527 0.710

The results shown in Table-9 that the model achieved a good level of composite reliability and

validity in this study. The C.R (composite reliability) > 0.6 for all constructs indicating a high level

of reliability. The values of Convergent validity were as given: (1) the regression coefficients for

entire constructs were found to be significant at a p value of < 0.05; (2) All normalized regression

138

and square multiple correlation scores for the measurement model were (>0.5 and 0.25)

respectively, above the threshold value (3) the C.R for every element is better from the AVE value

for this factor, but few values of AVE were not > 0.5 (e.g. for in-role performance .499 and for

retaliation, 0.461). According to Fornell and Larcker, 1981 argued discriminant validity <5 is also

acceptable in some cases particularly when all CR and other criterion are strong. Discriminant

validity (1) the AVE for each construct is greater than its MSV and ASV. (2) AVEs of two

constructions are greater than the variance shared between the two constructs; and (3) the

correlation coefficient value among exogenous constructions is < 0.85. Therefore, there is no

presence of multicolinearity in data set.

4.1.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

The data is found to be normally dispersed as the values of skewness confirmed the presence of

data within satisfactory range, which is +1 to -1 and +2 to -2. The values for asymmetry and

kurtosis between -2 and +2 are considered acceptable in order to prove normal univariate

distribution (George & Mallery, 2010). The confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using

Amos. As there was high correlation among all facets of performance appraisal purposefulness

failure, a second order CFA was performed while for other variables like in-role performance,

retaliation, overall injustice perceptions, and perceived organizational support, a first order CFA

was performed to see if the items are measuring the relevant constructs appropriately.

4.1.2.2.1 Model Fit for CFA:

139

Table-10 shows the fit indices for the overall injustice perception. The baseline analysis of model

fit of the model during confirmatory factor analysis confirms all results falls in the acceptable

ranges. As the above table depicts the weights of NFI, RFI, GFI and CFI are within acceptable

range, above 0.9. The RMSEA and SRMR values are 0.039 and 0.041 respectively, both below .08, the

desired level for model fit. According to the “Two-Index Presentation Strategy” given by Hu and

Bentler (1999), if the RMSEA value equals or lesser from 0.06, then a SRMR should be 0.09 or

lesser.

Table 10: Results of CFA

χ2(df) Ρ

CMIN/

df ratio NFI GFI AGFI TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR

Ρ

close

CFA of overall Injustice

2044.4

(1308) .000 1.563 0.833 0.839 .824 .929 0.932 0.039 0.041 1.00

Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit

140

Figure 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Table 11: Factor Loading during CFA

Constructs β R2 Significance

Administrative <--- PA purposes 0.932 0.860 .000

Developmental <--- PA purposes 1.000 1.01 .000

Strategic <--- PA purposes 1.000 0.990 .000

Role definition <--- PA purposes 0.944 0.890 .000

oip6 <--- overall injustice 0.665 0.442 .000






141

IRP7 <--- In-role Performance 0.715 0.490 .000







R1 <--- Retaliation 0.693 0.480 .000

R2 <--- Retaliation 0.696 0.485 .000

R3 <--- Retaliation 0.695 0.483 .000

R4 <--- Retaliation 0.695 0.483 .000

R5 <--- Retaliation 0.652 0.425 .000

R6 <--- Retaliation 0.68 0.463 .000

R7 <--- Retaliation 0.71 0.504 .000

R8 <--- Retaliation 0.646 0.417 .000

R9 <--- Retaliation 0.65 0.422 .000

R10 <--- Retaliation 0.728 0.529 .000

R11 <--- Retaliation 0.658 0.433 .000

R12 <--- Retaliation 0.662 0.438 .000

R13 <--- Retaliation 0.686 0.471 .000

R14 <--- Retaliation 0.72 0.518 .000

R15 <--- Retaliation 0.685 0.469 .000

R16 <--- Retaliation 0.564 0.318 .000

R17 <--- Retaliation 0.613 0.376 .000

papf3 <--- Administrative 0.725 0.526 .000



pdpf3 <--- Developmental 0.797 0.635 .000



pspf6 <--- Strategic 0.672 0.453 .000

pspf5 <--- Strategic 0.718 0.515 .000

pspf4 <--- Strategic 0.737 0.543 .000

pspf3 <--- Strategic 0.672 0.451 .000

pspf2 <--- Strategic 0.707 0.499 .000

pspf1 <--- Strategic 0.768 0.589 .000

prdpf3 <--- Role definition 0.717 0.514 .000



pos1 <--- Org. support 0.788 0.621 .000

142

pos2 <--- Org. support 0.747 0.557 .000

pos3 <--- Org. support 0.784 0.615 .000

pos4 <--- Org. support 0.668 0.447 .000

pos5 <--- Org. support 0.781 0.610 .000

pos6 <--- Org. support 0.715 0.512 .000

pos7 <--- Org. support 0.641 0.411 .000

pos8 <--- Org. support 0.511 0.261 .000

The results for CFA indicates that unstandardized regression weights to be significant at the 0.01

significance level. The factor loading for performance appraisal purposefulness failure were found

significant as all the loadings are greater than 0.5 ranged from (.932 to 1.000) for administrative,

developmental, strategic and role definition purposefulness failure. The factors loading weights for

Perceived administrative performance failure (PAPF) were also significant as shown by the

standardized regression weights for papf1, papf2, papf3 were greater than 0.5 (ranging from 0.725

to 0.774). The standardized regression scores of pdpf1 (.749), pdpf2 (.741) and pdpf3 (.797) are

lying within the concerned range, above 0.5 and confirms that all items are well loaded on the

performance appraisal developmental purposes failure construct (PDPF). Perceived strategic

purposefulness failure (PSPF) regression weights ranged from 0.672 to 0.768 for all six items.

Lastly, the items loading for Perceived role definition purposes failure (PRDPF) indicates the

standardized regression weights for all items within the acceptable range from 0.716 to 0.771.

The variance analysis showed the significant R2 weights for whole of the items included in study

and every item represents higher variance percentage in dependent variables. For aggregate

performance appraisal purposefulness failure have minimum R2 0.860 for administrative purposes

failure and maximum value is for strategic purposefulness failure which is 0.990. The smallest

value of R2 is against perceived administrative purposes failure is 0.526 for papf3, whereas the

143

papf2 contains maximum value of 0.598, for perceived development purposes failure the minimum

R2 value is of pdpf2=0.548 and maximum R2 for the construct is for pdpf3=0.635, the minimum R2

value is 0.451 for perceived strategic purposes failure and maximum is 0.589 from all six items,

and perceived role definition purposes failure have minimum R2 for Prdpf1 is 0.512 and maximum

value is for prdpf2 which is 0.595 (Table-11).

Factors loadings for overall injustice perception were found within the acceptable ranges as the

standardized regression weights for various items of construct were found to be > 0.5 (ranged from

0.665-0.887). The results of Variance analysis showed that the R2 weights for all overall injustice

items have high significance level and every item is well explaining a higher variance proportionate

in study’s dependent variable as shown in (Table-11)

The Factors loading values for POS perceived organizational support were also lying within

acceptable ranges as the standardized regression weights for all the items were greater than or close

to 0.5 (ranging from.511 to .788).The variance analysis depicted the value of R2 of all items of

perceived organizational support are lying within the acceptable ranges and every item represents a

higher variance proportionate in explaining the dependent variable of study. The model-fit analysis

shows that all the values for the baseline indicators are found within the threshold ranges (Table-

11).

Factors loadings given in Table-11 for in-role Performance indicated that the scores for all of the

items of standardized regression were higher from 0.5 except IRP1 (ranged from 0.468 to 0.762).

The variance analysis depicted the value of R2 of all items of perceived organizational support are

lying within the acceptable ranges and every item represents a higher variance proportionate in

144

explaining the dependent variable of study. The model-fit analysis shows that all the values for the

baseline indicators are found within the threshold ranges.

Factors loadings for retaliation were found within the acceptable range as all of regression weights

(standardized) were > than 0.5 (ranged from 0.564 to 0.728). The variance analysis depicted the

value of R2 of all items of retaliation are lying within the acceptable ranges and every item

represents a higher variance proportionate in explaining the dependent variable of study. The

model-fit analysis shows that all the values for the baseline indicators are found within the

threshold ranges (Table-11)

4.1.3 Structural Model Analysis:

The SEM (structural equation modeling) emphasizes on estimation of relationship within the

postulated latent hypotheses, the structural equation model gives a graphical explanation of nature

of relationship between observed/unobserved variables. Therefore, it identifies the path through

which certain latent variable influence in a direct or indirect manner (like cause) variations in the

other latent variables within the selected model. Thus, SEM defines the relationship between the

various constructs, which are supposed to be used to analyzing the hypotheses.

According to the “Beginner’s guide to Structural Equation Modeling” Modification indices were

developed by Sörbom (1986) and represent an improvement over the first order partial derivatives

already described. A modification index for a particular non-free parameter indicates that if this

parameter were allowed to become free in a subsequent model, then the chi-square goodness-of-fit

145

value would be predicted to decrease by at least the value of the modification index. When the

statistics and/or fit indices suggest inadequate fit of a structural equation model, the model may be

modified, or re-specified, followed by retesting of the modified model (MacCallum, Roznowski, &

Necowitz, 1992). Modification index (MI) provides an estimated value in which the model’s chi-

square (χ2) test statistic would decrease if a fixed parameter were added to the model and freely

estimated (for a more detailed explanation about the computation of the MI, see Satorra,1989 and

S ̈orbom, 1989). MI is carried out by first examining whether adding any fixed parameters to the

model would significantly reduce the model’s χ2 test statistic. If so, researchers would typically

examine the set of statistically significant, potential re-specifications to determine which would

lead to the largest decrease in the model’s χ2. If the re-specification leading to the largest reduction

in χ2 is theoretically plausible, it could be added in order to improve model fit (Whittaker, 2012).

This process would be repeated until adding any fixed parameters would not significantly reduce

the model’s χ2 or until none of the statistically significant, potential re-specifications are

theoretically plausible to include in the model (Bollen,1989).

4.1.3.1 Relationship between Administrative purposefulness failure and In-role Performance

and Retaliation

The model fit of the hypothesis-1 (a) and (b) was evaluated by multiple fit indices of the path

analysis, which reveals that the modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as shown in table-12.

The results showed a Chi-square value, a normed Chi-square (χ2 565.8 p, 0.000), CMIN/df ratio

(1.76) which is below five. The CFI (Comparative Fit Index) value equals to .946, and the value for

RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) is (.045) and SRMR (.038), both are less

than .08 with a significant p-value for close-fit represents as an indicator of goodness of model-fit

and all the results found to be in acceptable ranges

146

Table 12: Results showing the relationship between Administrative purposefulness failure

and In-role Performance and Retaliation

Construct Path Construct χ2

(df) Ρ CMIN/

df ratio GFI AGFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close

H1 (a) In-role

Performance <---

Administrative

Purposefulness failure 565.8

(322) .000 1.76 .905 .888 .946 .942 .045 .038

0.925

H1 (b) Retaliation <---

Administrative

Purposefulness failure


The regression results in figure-4 depicted that the Perceived administrative purposefulness

failure was found to be a significant negative predictor of in-role performance (β = -.475, ρ < .001),

and also a significant and positive relationship was confirmed between Perceived administrative

purposefulness failure and retaliation (β = .235, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-1 (a) and

hypothesis-1 (b) are accepted.

147

Figure 4: Path Model showing the relationship between Administrative purposefulness failure

and In-role performance and Retaliation

148

4.1.3.2 Relationship between Developmental purposefulness failure and In-role Performance

and Retaliation

The model fit of the hypothesis-2 (a) and hypothesis-2 (b) was tested using multiple fit indices of

the path analysis. The analysis reveals that the modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as

shown in table-13. The results shows a Chi-square value of (χ2 577.04 p, 0.000), CMIN/df ratio of

(1.79) which is below 5; GFI (.902), the value of CFI (Comparative Fit Index) equals to 0.944, TLI

(.939) and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value is (.046) and SRMR (.039),

both lies below the 0.08 with a significant p-value for close-fit, represents as an indicator of

goodness of model-fit and all the results found to be in acceptable ranges.

Table 13: Results showing the relationship between Developmental purposefulness failure and

In-role Performance and Retaliation


(df) Ρ CMIN/


H2 (a) In-role

Performance <---

Developmental


(322) .000 1.79 .902 .885 .944 .939 .046 .039

0.878


Developmental



The regression results displayed in figure-5 depicted Perceived developmental purposefulness

failure is significantly and negatively predicts the in-role performance (β = -.46, ρ < .001) and also

a positive and significant relation was confirmed among Perceived developmental purposefulness

failure and retaliation (β = .21, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-2 (a) and (b) are accepted.

149

Figure 5: Path model showing the relationship between developmental purposefulness failure

and In-role performance and Retaliation

150

4.1.3.3 Relationship between Strategic purposefulness failure and In-role Performance and

Retaliation

The model fit of the hypothesis-3 (a) and hypothesis-3 (b) were evaluated by multiple fit indices of

the path analysis. The results reveals that the modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as

shown in table-14. The results showed a Chi-square value (χ2 665.2, p .000), CMIN/df ratio equals

1.65 which is below5, the threshold value. GFI (.901), CFI (Comparative Fit Index) value equals to

.948, TLI (.944). RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value is (.041) and SRMR

(.038), both are lesser from .08, having a p-value falls within significant ranges for close-fit, used

as an indicator of goodness of model-fit and all the results found to be in acceptable ranges.

Table 14: Results showing the relationship between Strategic purposefulness failure and In-

role Performance and Retaliation


(df) Ρ CMIN/


H3 (a) In-role

Performance <---

Strategic


(403) .000 1.65 .901 .886 .948 .944 .041 .038

0.995


Strategic



The regression results figure-6 depicted Perceived strategic purposefulness failure was significantly

and negatively predicts in-role performance (β = -.47, ρ < .001) and a significant and positive

relationship was confirmed between Perceived strategic purposefulness failure and retaliation (β =

.19, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-3(a) and hypothesis-3(b) are accepted.

151

Figure 6: Path Model showing the relationship between Strategic purposefulness failure and

In-role performance and Retaliation

152

4.1.3.4 Relationship between Role definition purposefulness failure and In-role Performance

and Retaliation

The model fit of the hypothesis-4 (a) and (b) were evaluated by multiple fit indices of the path

analysis. The output of analysis reveals that the modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as

shown in table-15, the results showed a Chi-square value, (χ2 827.27 p, 0.000), CMIN/df ratio

equals 2.618 which is below the acceptable value of 5, GFI (.870), CFI (Comparative Fit Index)

value equals to .899, NFI (.847) and the value for RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation) is (.065) and SRMR (.038), both are below .08, with an acceptable p-value

ensures the close-fit which is used as an indicator of goodness of model-fit and all the results found

to be in acceptable ranges.

Table 15: Results showing the relationship between Role definition purposefulness failure and

In-role Performance and Retaliation


(df) Ρ CMIN/


H3 (a) In-role

Performance <---

Role definition


(322) .000 1.76 .904 .887 .946 .941 .045 .038

0.924


Role definition



The regression results figure-7 depicted Perceived role definition purposefulness failure

significantly and negatively predicts in-role performance (β = -.45, ρ < .001) and a significant and

positive relationship was confirmed between Perceived role definition purposefulness failure and

retaliation (β = .25, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-4 (a) and (b) are accepted.

153

154

Figure 7: Path Model showing the relationship between Role definition purposefulness failure

and In-role performance and Retaliation.

4.1.3.5 Relationship between performance appraisal purposefulness (administrative,

developmental, strategic and role definition) failure and In-role Performance and

Retaliation

After testing different facets of Performance appraisal purposefulness failure individually with the

both of dependent variables (e.g. in-role performance and retaliation), a second order relationship

was tested to confirm the accuracy of model because there was a high correlation among different

facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure. The output of analysis reveals that the

modified model fits the scale’s data quite well as shown in table-15, the results showed a Chi-

square value, (χ2 1131.4 p, 0.000), CMIN/df ratio equals 1.63 which is below the acceptable value

of 5, GFI (.872), CFI (Comparative Fit Index) value equals to .942, TLI (.938) and the value for

RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) is (.041) and SRMR (.039), both are below

.08, with an acceptable p-value ensures the close-fit which is used as an indicator of goodness of

model-fit and all the results found to be in acceptable ranges.

Table 16: Results showing the relationship between all facets of performance appraisal

purposefulness failure as a second order construct and In-role Performance and Retaliation


(df) Ρ CMIN/


H1 (a)

H2 (a)

H3 (a)

H4 (a)

In-role

Performance c

All facets of

performance appraisal


1131.4

(695) .000 1.63 .872 .857 .942 .938 .041 .039

1.0

155

H1 (b)

H2 (b)

H3 (b)

H4 (b)

Retaliation <---

All facets of

performance appraisal



The regression results figure-8 depicted Perceived role definition purposefulness failure

significantly and negatively predicts in-role performance (β = -.48, ρ < .001) and a significant and

positive relationship was confirmed between Perceived role definition purposefulness failure and

retaliation (β = .40, ρ < .001). Therefore, the both hypothesis-4 (a) and (b) are accepted.

Comparing the results of hypothesis tested individually and as second order construct revels that

there is no significant change in goodness of model fit Table-16. The beta value for in-role

performance (β = -.48, ρ < .001) and retaliation (β = .24, ρ < .001) also not significantly different

from the one calculated for H1(a) (b), H2 (a) (b), H3 (a) (b) and H4 (a) (b).

156

Figure 8: Path Model showing the performance appraisal purposefulness failure as second

order construct and its relationship with in-role performance and Retaliation.

157

4.1.3.6 Relationship between Performance appraisal purposefulness failure (PAPF, PDPF,

PSPF, and PRDPF) and Overall injustice perception

Results for hypothesis-5 showed the model fit statistics prefer the Chi-square test (χ2) for an

accurate mode fit. The lower the scores and significance, the better the model fit. The results for

hypothesis-5 (b) showed a lower χ2value than hypothesis-5 (a), hypothesis-5 (d) and hypthesis2 (c)

(χ2 59.9, p 0.000, χ2 64.8., p, 0.000 χ2 73.3, p, .000 and χ2 119.7, p, 0.000 respectively).

The other important indicator to determine the model fit is the ratio between χ2 and the level of

degrees of freedom (df) in model. This ratio should be 1.0 >CMIN/DF ≤ 3.0 for Best Fit, 3.0

>CMIN/DF ≤ 5.0 for acceptable and CMIN/DF > 5.0 indicates a Poor Fit. The (χ2 / df) ratio values

for hypthesis5 (a) showed a lower CMIN value than hypthesis5 (b), hypthesis5 (c) and hypthesis5

(d) (M1=2.49, M2=2.30, M3=2.25 and M4=2.93 respectively.

The below table-17 shows the model consistencies and goodness of fit indices of all the four

models representing direct relationships of Papf, Pdpf, Pspf and Prdpf and overall injustice

perception responses, to be discussed in following pages. The values of Comparative Fit Index

(CFI), Non-normed Fit Index (NFI) to confirm the incremental fit, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI),

and Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and SRMR ensure the absolute mode fit to

measure the model fit. The standard criteria to determine the model fits consisting upon CFI (CFI ≥

0.95 represents Best Fit and CFI ≥ 0.90 is acceptable), NFI should also be ≥ 0.90, and GFI (≥ 0.90

to1.00) indicate good fit. According to kline (2005) the RMSEA requires values ≤ 0.05 for good fit

and ≤ 0.09 suggest acceptable fit. In model-1 comprised on hypothesis 5 (a), the GFI: 0.965, CFI:

0.980, NFI: 0.969, RMSEA: 0.063 and P close 0.127 Model-2 for (hypothesis 2 (b)), also showed a

good fit as GFI: 0.965, CFI: 0.983, NFI: 0.970, RMSEA: 0.059 and P close: 0.214. The Model fit

158

values for of model-3 (hypothesis 2 (c)) indicates (GFI:0.951, CFI:0.973, NFI:0.953,

RMSEA:0.057 P close=0.339. lastly model-4 (hypothesis 2 (d)) GF:0.960, CFI:0.976, NFI:0.964,

RMSEA: 0.071 and P close:0.030. the model fit statistics for all hypothesis proved a good fit. and

hypothesis-5 (b) provides the best fit as compare to hypothesis-5 (a), (c)-and (d).

Table 17: Relationship between IVs and Mediator (OIP)

χ2 (df) Ρ CMI

N/df

ratio

GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR Ρ close

H5 (a) Papf and oip 64.8 (26) .000 2.49 .965 .980 .969 .063 .0343 .127

H5 (b) Pdpf and oip 59.9 (26) .000 2.30 .965 .983 .970 .059 .0315 .214

H5 (c) Pspf and oip 119.7 (53) .000 2.25 .951 .973 .953 .057 .0339 .176

H5(d) Prdpf and oip 73.3 (25) .000 2.93 .960 .976 .964 .071 .0591 .030


4.1.3.7 Perceived Administrative purposes failure and Overall injustice perception Responses

The path model shown in figure-9 clarifying the relations between perceived administrative

purposes failure and overall injustice perception. The analysis showed a good model fit, χ2 = 64.8,

p= .000, the CMIN/df ratio = 2.49, GFI=.965, CFI = .980, NFI=.969, RMSEA = .063,

SRMR=.0343, P Close = .127. The results fall within the acceptable ranges (Table-18).

159

Table 18: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived administrative

purposes failure and Overall Injustice Perception Responses

Hypothesis-1 (a) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/d

f ratio


Papf and oip 64.8 (26) .000 2.49 .965 .980 .969 .063 .0343 .127


Figure 9: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived administrative

purposefulness failure and overall injustice perception

The results depicted Perceived administrative purposefulness failure was found to be a significant

and positive predictor of overall injustice perception (β = .65, ρ < .05).

160

4.1.3.8 Perceived Developmental purposes failure and Overall injustice perception Responses

The path model shown in figure-10 clarifying the relations between perceived developmental

purposes failure and overall injustice perception. The results showed a good model fit, χ2 = 59.95,

p=.000, the CMIN/df ratio = 2.30, GFI=.965, CFI = .983, NFI=.970, RMSEA = .059,

SRMR=.0315, and P Close = .214 (Table-19).

Table 19: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived developmental


Hypothesis-1 (b) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/df

ratio


Pdpf and oip 59.9 (26) .000

0

2.30 .965 .983 .970 .059 .0315 .214


Figure 10: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived developmental


Perceived developmental purposefulness failure was found to be a significant and positive predictor

of overall injustice perception (β = .70, ρ < .05).

161

4.1.3.9 Perceived Strategic purposes failure and Overall injustice perception Responses


purposes failure and overall injustice perception. The results for path model showed a good model

fit, χ2 = 90.75, p= .000, the CMIN/df ratio = 2.25, CFI = .973, RMSEA = .057, SRMR=.0339 and

P Close = .176 (Table-20).

Table 20: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived strategic purposes

failure and Overall Injustice Perception Responses

Hypothesis-1 (c) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/d

f ratio


Pspf and oip 119.7 (53) .000 2.25 .951 .973 .953 .057 .0339 .176


Figure 11: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived Strategic


Perceived strategic purposefulness failure was found to be a significant and positive predictor of

overall injustice perception (β = .69, ρ < .05).

162

4.1.3.10 Perceived Role Definition Purposes Failure and Overall injustice perception Responses


purposes failure and overall injustice perception. To fit the data well, the modification indices

suggested revision in the initial model, which is meaningful both conceptually and statistically (in

terms of a relatively strong improvement in the model’s fit) by linking the error terms of items 8

and 9 in the overall injustice scale. The re-analysis improved the model fit, χ2 = 73.36, p= .000

(shows that the model is internally consistent), the CMIN/df ratio = 2.93, CFI = .976, RMSEA =

.071; P Close = .030 (Table-21).

Table 21: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived role definition


Hypothesis-1 (d) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/d

f ratio


Prdpf and oip 73.36 (25) .000 2.93 .960 .976 .964 .071 .0591 .030


Figure 12: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived role definition


Perceived role definition purposefulness failure was found to be a significant and positive predictor

of overall injustice perception (β = .94, ρ < .05).

163

4.1.3.11 Relationship of all Facets of Performance appraisal purposefulness failure as second

order construct with Overall injustice perception

The path model shown in figure-11 measure the relationship of all facets of performance appraisal

purposefulness (administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition) failure as second

construct with overall injustice perception. The results for path model showed a good model fit, χ2

= 477.45, p= .000, the CMIN/df ratio = 2.59, CFI = .941, RMSEA = .065, SRMR=.0337 and P

Close = .000 (Table-22).

Table 22: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Perceived role definition


Hypothesis-1 (d) χ2 (df) Ρ CMIN/d

f ratio


Prdpf and oip 477.4 (184) .000 2.59 .892 .941 .908 .065 .0377 .000


Figure 13: Path Diagram showing the relationship between Perceived role definition


164

4.1.3.12 Overall Injustice Perception and In-role performance and Retaliation Responses

Again SEM was used to test the Hypothesis-3, postulating that the overall injustice’s relationship

with both dependent variables e.g. In-role performance and Retaliation. Table-23 showed the

results of fit statistics calculated for the relationship hypothesized. The chi square value (χ2 702.2 p,

0.000). The model fit exhibit from CMIN/DF ratio is < 3.0, indicates a best fit, the CFI: 0.946, NFI:

0.883, GFI: 0.896, SRMR= .0410 and RMSEA: 0.044 also ensures the good fit for the hypothetical

model.

Table 23: Model Consistency and Goodness of Fit measures for Overall Injustice Perception


Hypothesis χ2(df) Ρ CMIN/df

ratio GFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR

Ρ

close

H6 (a) Oip → IRP 702.2 (403) .000 1.74 0.896 0.946 0.883 0.044 .0410 .960

H6 (b) OIP →

Retaliation

165

Figure 14: Path diagram showing the relationship between Overall Injustice Perception and

In-role performance and Retaliation

The results confirmed a negative and significant relationship with in-role performance (β = -.326, ρ

< .001, positive and significant relationship with retaliation (β = .226, ρ <.05). The whole results

indicates a good relationship among the predictors and dependent variables. The results confirms

the hypothesis-6 (a) and (b).

166

Table 24: Summary of regression results for direct hypothesis

Hypothesis Sign Path β SE CR>1.96

H1 (a) - PAPF → IRP -.47***

.064 -5.76 Accepted

H1 (b) + PAPF→ R .23***

.054 3.88 Accepted

H2 (a) - PDPF → IRP -.46***

.053 -6.00 Accepted

H2 (b) + PDPF→ R .21***

.046 3.65 Accepted

H3 (a) - PSPF → IRP -.46***

.060 -5.85 Accepted

H3 (b) + PSPF→ R .19***

.050 3.31 Accepted

H4 (a) - PRDPF → IRP -.45***

.063 -5.55 Accepted

H4 (b) + PRDPF→ R .25***

.054 4.08 Accepted

H5 (a) + PAPF → OIP .64***

.086 10.88 Accepted

H5 (b) + PDPF → OIP .70***

.097 11.31 Accepted

H5 (c) + PSPF → OIP .69***

.095 11.50 Accepted

H5 (d) + PRDPF → OIP .94**

.063 17.20 Accepted

H6 (a) - OIP → IRP -.33**

.046 -5.38 Accepted

H6 (b) + OIP →R .23**

.048 3.96 Accepted

4.1.3.13 Mediation Analyses:

The indirect effects is postulated in hypothesis 7, (a) and (b), hypothesis 8, (a) and (b), hypothesis

9, (a) and (b), hypothesis 10, (a) and (b), which are aimed to test the mediating role of overall

injustice perception between predictors (perceived administrative purposes failure, perceived

developmental purposes failure, perceived strategic purposes failure and perceived role definition

167

purposes failure) and criterion variables (in-role performance and retaliation). Barron and Kenny

suggested a multistep method to test the mediation, despite of its historical popularity, the method

entails some serious methodological problems like this method implies that there should be a

significant relation between X (predictor) Y (Dependent) and M (Mediator). This is not always the

case and sometimes, although X and Y seem not to be related, they can be significantly mediated

by an M. Therefore, the current research suggested no further use of total effect (c) for tests of

mediation (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, et al., 2002). Moreover, it

is widely recommended to replace this approach more statistically powerful, make fewer

assumptions of the data, and are more logically coherent (Hayes, 2009; 2013; Shrout & Bolger,

2002). Similarly, Sobel test which was initially recommended by the researcher due to its ability to

show a significant indirect effect between the relationship of predictor and criterion variable

(Kenny D., 2016, Cole, Walter, & Bruch, 2008) considered as a more powerful tool to test the

mediation was later on evaded because of the lack of power of the Sobel test and its reliance on a

normal sampling distribution, it is best to use when data met the normality assumption. MacKinnon

et al., (2004) and Hayes (2013) recommended using bootstrapping for mediation because it reduces

the problem of power related tests. it takes a apparently huge random samples with substitution

(e.g., 5000) of the similar sample size from given data, measuring the indirect effect (the ab path) in

each sample, comparing those estimates from lowermost to uppermost, and then express a

confidence interval for indirect effect within certain array of percentiles (e.g., 5th and 95th for a

95% confidence interval).

Therefore, to verify the results. the mediation was tested using Structural Equation Modeling

(SEM) in analysis of a moment structure (AMOS), Version 20.0 because it allows to test all

Mediation Model Components (SEM) (Arbuckle, 2012). A 5000 bootstrap resampling method and

168

bias correction for mediation analysis was used (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004;

Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

4.1.3.13.1 Mediation analysis Using SEM

Model fit through SEM was examined using the chi-square statistic, the Comparative Fit Index

(CFI), NFI, the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) and SRMR. The results of mediation path model showed a good fit with the data: a chi

square value (χ2 2180.55 p, 0.000). The CMIN/DF ratio is 2.33, does not indicates a best fit, the

CFI: 0.856, TLI: 0.848, GFI: 0.791, and RMSEA: 0.059 and SRMR: 0.065. As the initial model

fails to explain data well, the modification indices suggested revision in the initial model, which is

meaningful both conceptually and statistically (in terms of a relatively strong improvement in the

model’s fit) by linking the error terms of items 7,10 and 15 in the retaliation scale and items 2 and 4

in in-role performance scale. The re-analysis improved the model fit, χ2 = 1659.04, p= .000 (shows

that the model is internally consistent), the CMIN/df ratio = 1.78, TLI=.911, GFI=.844, CFI = .916,

RMSEA = .045; P Close = .0985 (Table-25) As overall model fit ranged from moderate to good,

and was generally acceptable for each analysis when viewed across the fit indices.

Table 25: Summary of Model Fit for Mediation analysis

Mediation χ2(df) Ρ CMIN/df

ratio GFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Ρ

close

Model Fit Statistics 1659.0 (932) .000 1.78 0.844 0.916 0.911 0.045 0.08 .985

169

Figure 15: Path diagram showing Mediation of Overall Injustice Perception on the Relation

between Administrative, Developmental, Strategic and Role definition purposefulness failure


170

4.1.3.13.1.1 Mediation effects overall injustice perception on In-role performance and retaliation

through perceived developmental purposes failure:

Hypothesis 7(a) and (b) to hypothesis 10 (a) and (b) was tested for the assumption that Overall

injustice perception mediates the relation among perceived administrative, developmental, strategic

and role definition purposes failure and its consequent variables (e.g. in-role performance and

retaliation). The results presented in Table-26-27, for hypothesis 7 (a), 8 (a), 9 (a) and 10 (a)

showed a significant direct effect of performance appraisal purposefulness failure on overall

injustice perception (path-a) (β = 0.709, P = .000, CI = 0.61 to 0.79), but the direct effect of overall

injustice and in-role performance (path-b) was insignificant (β = -.041, P = .536, CI = -0.09 to

0.153) and the (path-c’) showing the effects of all facets of performance appraisal purposes failure

on in-role performance (β = -.0492, P = .005, CI = -0.665 to -0.31) was also found to be significant.

The bootstrap indirect effect confirmed the perceived developmental purposes failure on in-role

performance through overall injustice perception (β = 029, P = .005, CI = -0.067 to 0.107) at a 95%

confidence interval. The results shows no mediation for in-role performance because MacKinnon et

al. in (2004) argued that the presence of 0 between the lower and upper bound of CI suggests no

mediation.

Next for hypothesis 7 (b), 8 (b), 9 (b) and 10 (b) the Overall injustice perception mediation was

tested among perceived administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition purposes failure

and retaliation. The results specifies the direct effect between all facets of performance appraisal

purposes failure on overall injustice (β = 0.709, P = .000, CI = 0.61 to 0.79) was significant. The

direct effect of overall injustice and retaliation (path-b) was two tailed significant with values (β =

171

.172, P = .018 CI = 0.032 to 0.311). The indirect effects of performance appraisal purposes failure

and retaliation (path-c’) was insignificant (β = .101, P = .307 CI = -0.099 to 0.298) when mediator

was entered.

The bootstrap indirect effect of performance appraisal purposefulness failure on retaliation through

overall injustice perception was found to be significant ((β = .122, P = .001 CI = 0.025 to 0.231), at

a 95% confidence interval. Accordingly, the overall injustice fully mediates the relationship

between all facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure and retaliation. As literature

suggests if path c’ becomes insignificant at the entrance of mediation in model there will be full

mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Therefore, the results of study support hypothesis-7 (b), 8 (,b)

9 (b)and 10 (b) to the extent of retaliation and rejected hypothesis-7 (a), 8 (a) 9 (a) and 10 (a) to the

extent of in-role performance.

Table 26: Regression Weights: Structural model for testing mediation

Construct Path Construct Estimate S.E. C.R. P Results

Administrative <--- PA purposes failure 0.93

Developmental <--- PA purposes failure 1.004 .083 14.212 *** Significant

Strategic <--- PA purposes failure 0.997 .085 12.118 *** Significant

Role definition <--- PA purposes failure 0.943 .083 12.321 *** Significant

overall injustice <--- PA purposes failure 0.709 .097 11.829 *** Significant

Retaliation <--- Overall injustice 0.172 .045 2.065 .039 Significant

Retaliation <--- PA purposes failure 0.101 .073 1.225 .221 Not Significant

In-role

Performance <--- PA purposes failure -0.492 .068 -5.474 *** Significant

172

Construct Path Construct Estimate S.E. C.R. P Results

In-role

Performance <--- Overall injustice 0.041 .038 .503 .615 Not Significant

Table 27: Bootstrapping Results - Mediation analysis of the effect of Developmental purposefulness

failure on In-role performance and Retaliation through Overall injustice Perception

Construct Path Constructs Point

Estimates

Boot

S.E

Bootstrapping

Percentile 95% CI ρ

Lower Upper

Standardized Direct effects

Administrative <--- PA purposes failure 0.93 .021 0.882 0.967 0.000

Developmental <--- PA purposes failure 1.004 .016 0.971 1.034 0.000

Strategic <--- PA purposes failure 0.997 .011 0.973 1.019 0.000

Role definition <--- PA purposes failure 0.943 .021 0.898 0.982 0.001

overall injustice <--- PA purposes failure 0.709 .046 0.61 0.79 0.000

Retaliation <--- Overall injustice 0.172 .072 0.032 0.311 0.018

Retaliation <--- PA purposes failure 0.101 .102 -0.099 0.298 0.307

In-role

Performance <--- PA purposes failure -0.492 .090 -0.665 -0.31 0.000

In-role

Performance <--- Overall injustice 0.041 .061 -0.09 0.153 0.536

Standardized Indirect effects

Retaliation <--- PA purposes failure 0.122 .053 0.025 0.231 0.015

In-role

Performance <--- PA purposes failure 0.029 .043 -0.067 0.107 0.529

Note: n=380, standardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size=5000, LL= Lower Limit; CI =

Confidence Interval; UL= upper limit. Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95.00

173

4.1.3.14 Moderation Analysis:

The perceived organizational support (POS) was tested as moderator between (perceived

performance appraisal purposefulness failure, perceived developmental purposes failure, perceived

strategic purposes failure, perceived role definition purposes failure) and overall injustice

perception and it was assumed that, the stronger the relationship for an employee with low

perceived organizational support than the individual feeling high organizational support. The Baron

and Kenny’s method for moderation was used to assess the moderation effects upon the suggested

variables. The Hayes model-1 was used to test the moderation among the variables.

4.1.3.14.1 Moderation Analysis of perceived organizational Support between the relationship

of perceived administrative purposes failure and Perceived Overall Injustice:

The results for the Hypothesis-11 (a) shown in table-39 displays the direct effects of perceived

administrative purposes failure (β = .268, p < .05) on overall injustice perception and found to be

significant and positive. Age gender, education and current experience were entered as control

variables in first step. The results showed that age (β = -.0097, p >.05), gender (β = .074, p >.05),

education (β = .265, p > .05) and current experience (β = .0310, p > .05) has no significant effects

on OIP. Whereas perceived organizational support (β = -.668, p < .05) have significant negative

impact on overall injustice perception. An examination of the perceived organizational support as

moderator between perceived administrative purposes failure and overall injustice perception using

the Model-1 in Process, shows an overall model significance (F=14.71, p=.0000) accounting for

19.7% of variance in overall injustice perception (R2 =.197). The POS significantly interact with

174

OIP (β= -.2878, p < .05). The interaction effect of POS and OIP explained a 1.78% variance (ΔR2

=0.0178, F=13.50 p < .05), so the POS negatively and significantly influence the relationship

between the two variables, as the subordinates with high POS level will low OIP than those who

are lower on POS.


of perceived developmental purposes failure and Perceived Overall Injustice

Table-40 displays the results for the Hypothesis-11 (b) depicts a significant direct effect of

perceived developmental purposes failure (β = .3159, p < .05) on overall injustice perception. Age

gender, education and current experience were entered as control variables in first step. The results

showed that age (β = -.0338, p >.05), gender (β = .1355, p >.05), and current experience (β = -

.1473, p > .05) has no significant effects on OIP. However, education (β = .2810, p < .05) is

significantly and positively influence the oip when entered with developmental purposes failure.

This can be explained as people with more education build higher overall injustice perception when

developmental purposes failure occurs. The perceived organizational support (β = -.5686, p < .05)

is negatively related with overall injustice perception. The perceived organizational support was

examined as moderator between perceived administrative purposes failure and overall injustice

perception using the Model-1 in Process. The results shows an overall model fit (F=22.11,

p=.0000) accounting for 22.77% of variance in overall injustice perception (R2 =.2277). The POS

significantly interact with OIP (β= -.3537, p < .05). The interaction effect of POS and OIP

explained a 2.48% variance (ΔR2 =0.0248, F=19.04 p < .05), thus the POS weaken the direct

relationship the two variables, proving that as the employees with high POS will perceive low

175

injustice in result to a perceived failure in performance appraisal developmental purposes than

those who are lower on POS.


of perceived strategic purposes failure and Perceived Overall Injustice

The results for the Hypothesis-11 (c) shown in table-41 displays the direct effects of perceived

strategic purposes failure (β = .5495, p < .05) are positive and significant effect on OIP. Age

gender, education and current experience were entered as control variables in first step. The results

showed that age (β = -.0856, p >.05), gender (β = .0769, p >.05), and current experience (β = -

.2369, p > .05) has no significant effects on OIP. However, education (β = .3010, p < .05) is

significantly and positively influence the oip when entered with strategic purposes failure. This can

be explained as people with more education build higher overall injustice perception when strategic

purposes failure occurs. The perceived organizational support (β = -.2899, p < .05) found to have

significant negative impact on overall injustice perception. The moderation analysis of perceived

organizational support between perceived administrative purposes failure and overall injustice

perception was examined using the Model-1 in Process. The results displays an overall model

significance (F=37.49, p=.0000) accounting for 35.31% of variance in overall injustice perception

(R2 =.3531). The POS significantly interact with OIP (β= -.1607, p < .05). The interaction effect of

POS and OIP explained a 0.96% variance (ΔR2 =0.0096, F=3.38 p < .05), so the POS has a

negative and significant influence on the relationship between the two variables, as the

subordinates, high on POS will low on PSPF and OIP than those who are lower on POS. So the

results of study accepts the hypothesis-5

176


of perceived role definition purposes failure and Perceived Overall Injustice

Table-42 displays the results for the relationships postulated in the Hypothesis-11 (d) as direct

effects of perceived role definition purposes failure has a significant and positive relationship (β =

.5309, p < .05) as compared to perceived organizational support which has a significant negative

impact on overall injustice perception (β = -.3861, p < .05). Age gender, education and current

experience were entered as control variables in first step. The results showed that age (β = -.0680, p

>.05), gender (β = .1014, p >.05) has no significant effects on OIP. However, education (β = .2938,

p < .05) is significantly and positively while current experience (β = -.1887, p < .05) negatively

influence the oip when entered with role definition purposes failure. For education, This can be

explained as people with more education build higher overall injustice perception when role

definition purposes failure occurs or people have lesser job clarity and employee with more

experience on current job display lower overall injustice perception when role definition purposes

failure occurs. The moderation analysis for perceived organizational support between perceived

administrative purposes failure and overall injustice perception using the Model-1 in Process shows

an overall model fit (F=31.77, p=.0000) accounting for 34.79% of variance in overall injustice

perception (R2 =.3479). The POS significantly interact with OIP (β= -.1402, p < .05). The

interaction effect of POS and OIP explained a 1.07% variance (ΔR2 =0.0107, F=5.15, p < .05), so

the results depicts a negative impact of POS between the relationship of perceived role definition

purposes and overall injustice perception, as the individuals having high POS will be low OIP than

those lower on POS. thus hypothesis-5 (d) is accepted.

177

HYPOTHESES RESULTS:

Sr. No. Hypothesis Accepted /

Rejected

Hypothesis 1(a): Perceived administrative purposes failure is negatively

related to in-role performance.

Accepted

Hypothesis 1(b): Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively

related to Retaliation

Accepted

Hypothesis 2(a): Perceived development purposes failure is negatively


Accepted

Hypothesis 2(b): Perceived development purposes failure is positively

related to Retaliation

Accepted

Hypothesis 3(a): Perceived strategic purposes failure is negatively related

to in-role performance.

Accepted

Hypothesis 3(b): Perceived strategic purposes failure is positively to

Retaliation

Accepted

178

Hypothesis 4 (a): Perceived role definition purposes failure is negatively


Accepted

Hypothesis 4 (b): Perceived role definition purposes failure is positively

related to Retaliation.

Accepted

Hypothesis 5(a): Perceived administrative purposes failure is positively

related to overall injustice perception.

Accepted

Hypothesis 5(b): Perceived development purposes failure is positively


Accepted

Hypothesis 5(c): Perceived strategic purposes failure is positively to

overall injustice perception.

Accepted

Hypothesis 5(d): Perceived role definition purposes failure is positively


Accepted

Hypothesis 6(a): Overall Injustice has a negative relationship with in-role

performance.

Accepted

Hypothesis 6(b): Overall Injustice has a positive relationship with

retaliation

Accepted

Hypothesis 7(a):

Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among

perceived administrative purposes failure and in-role

performance.

Rejected

179

Hypothesis 7(b):


perceived administrative purposes failure and retaliation

Accepted

Hypothesis 8(a):


perceived developmental purposes failure and in-role

performance.

Rejected

Hypothesis 8(b):


perceived developmental purposes failure and retaliation.

Accepted

Hypothesis 9(a): Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among

perceived strategic purposes failure and in-role

performance.

Rejected

Hypothesis 9(b): Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among

perceived strategic purposes failure and retaliation

Accepted

Hypothesis 10(a): Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among

perceived role definition purposes failure and in-role

performance

Rejected

Hypothesis 10(b): Overall injustice perception mediates the relation among

perceived role definition purposes failure and retaliation

Accepted

Hypothesis 11 (a): POS will moderate the relation between perceived

Administrative purposefulness failure and overall

injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an

employee with low perceived organizational support than

the individual feeling high organizational support.

Accepted

180

Hypothesis 11 (b): POS will moderate the relation between perceived

Developmental purposefulness failure and overall

injustice perception, this relationship is stronger for an

employee with low perceived organizational support than

the individual feeling high organizational support.

Accepted

Hypothesis 11 (c): POS will moderate the relation between perceived

Strategic purposefulness failure and overall injustice

perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee

with low perceived organizational support than the

individual feeling high organizational support.

Accepted

Hypothesis 11 (d): POS will moderate the relation between perceived Role

Definition purposefulness failure and overall injustice

perception, this relationship is stronger for an employee

with low perceived organizational support than the

individual feeling high organizational support.

Accepted

181

5. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The purpose of study was to test the link between performance appraisal purposes failure

(Administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition) and In-role performance and

retaliation. Based on the justice theory, the mediating effect of overall injustice perception was

studied between the dependent and independent variable. The moderating role of perceived

organizational support POS between the relationship of performance appraisal purposes failure

(Administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition) and overall injustice perception. The

study uses the organizational justice theory to explain the relationship among study variables.

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDING:

This research used time-lagged design with self and peer reported data set from the employees. The

research used a comprehensive survey based on a sample size of 380 respondents from various

occupational groups of civil service of Pakistan. This study has investigated and confirmed that

perceived administrative purposes failure, perceived developmental purposes failure, perceived

strategic purposes failure and perceived role definition purposes failure are significant predictors of

overall injustice perception, which mediates between hypothesized relationships and predicts the

182

in-role performance and retaliation. It also examined the moderating role of perceived

organizational support.

This research found that perceived overall injustice can be predicted by all facets of performance

appraisal purposefulness failure (e.g. administrative, developmental, Strategic and Role definition).

Furthermore, the results also showed that perceived overall injustice can negatively predict the in-

role performance and positively to retaliation among employees. Most importantly, this study found

that perceived organizational jus overall injustice has a mediating effect on the relationship

between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation,

which has not been examined in previous studies. These findings add to our understanding of how

PA-related HRM activities contribute to employee perceptions of overall injustice and which can

increase the retaliation in a number of ways, as explained in more detail below.

The findings of the present study also provide strong support for previous works which found that

employee complaints that most PAs are ineffective, and in response they decrease their

performance (Latham et al., 2005; Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2014) and increased level of

retaliation. The study also confirms the moderation of POS between different facets of performance

appraisal failure and overall injustice as moderator which is consistent with previous researches

like Treglown and colleagues, (2018) studied POS as moderator between dark personality and

intention to quit and argued that such moderations may alter the employees’ subsequent work

attitudes in terms of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. However,

the Moderation of POS between the several facets of performance appraisal failure and overall

injustice perceptions has not investigated earlier, so this study provide the empirical evidence for

this moderation. Finally, and most importantly, no research has yet investigated whether overall

injustice perceptions act as a possible mediator in the relationship between different facets of

183

Performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and retaliation. The present

results provide empirical support suggesting that employee perceptions of overall injustice are

responsible for the impact of different facets of Performance appraisal purposefulness failure on in-

role performance, however for retaliation mediation of overall injustice is not proved. In other

words, the failure of different purposes of performance appraisal affects in-role performance

through perceived organizational justice

5.1.1 Summary of Results of Reliability and Validity

The inter item reliability of instrument was measured and the reliability statistics were found to be

acceptable range (.84 for Perceived Administrative purposefulness failure, .84 for Perceived

Developmental purposefulness failure, .91 Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure, .95 Role

definition purposefulness failure, .95 Overall injustice perception, .84 for Perceived Organizational

Support, .90 for loyalty, .88 for In-Role Performance, and .84 for Retaliation). to ensure the

construct reliability of data composite reliability was calculated ranged from (.85 for Perceived

Administrative purposefulness failure, .89 for Perceived Developmental purposefulness failure, .88

Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure, .92 Role definition purposefulness failure, .96 Overall

injustice perception, .83 for Perceived Organizational Support, .89 for In-Role Performance, and

.92 for Retaliation). The convergent and discriminant validity was confirmed using goodness of fit

model and model consistency during confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

5.1.2 Hypothesis Testing:

184

To test the hypothesized relationship between the study variables was analyzed using

structural equation modeling (SEM) technique. The relationship between perceived administrative

purposes failure and overall injustice perceptions, perceived developmental purposes failure

overall injustice perception, perceived strategic purposes failure and overall injustice perception

perceived role definition purposes failure and overall injustice perception responses were studied

separately. Andrew Hayes (2013) model-1was used to study the moderating effect of perceived

organizational support on the direct relationship of different dimensions of performance appraisal

purposefulness failure and Overall injustice perception responses.

The results showed a negative significant relationship between Perceived administrative purposes

failure, Perceived developmental purposes failure, Perceived strategic Purposes failure and

Perceived role definition purposes failure and In-role performance and a positive relationship with

retaliation. The results are consistent with prior research, as it showed that the perceived failure to

performance appraisal occurs for mainly two reasons e.g. dissatisfaction or non-acceptance of

appraisal system and unfairness perception about the system. . For example, bulk of researches i.e.

Kondrasuk, JN, (2011); Hannay, M., (2010); Latham, GP, Heslin & D. Vande Walle, PA (2005)

pointed out that an organization may use a developed performance evaluation system, but if the

system is not accepted and supported by employees, its effectiveness will eventually be limited.

Similarly, perceived unfairness is another important concern for the individual. As research

suggests that employee, respond to perceived injustice in varying ways like employees are inclined

to blame the someone, system or procedure for the fault and displays the appropriate behavior

(silence, aggression, retaliation etc.) according to the situation (Burge, 2005). However, Coetzee in

(2005) identified various factors determining the employees behavior at the perception of injustice

185

for instance, level of felt injustice, past and expected future perceptions of injustice and individuals

dispositional factors e.g. willingness to retribution, propensity to encounter or avoid the

problematic situation. Likewise, Turnley and Feldman in (1999) enlisted few potential responses of

injustice: exit bеhaviour, (negative and active) e.g. employee decides to leave the organization;

withdrawal bеhaviour (negative and passive) e.g. employee decides to reduce his / her contribution;

voice bеhaviour (positive and active) e.g. raises voice against injustice and loyalty bеhaviour

(positive and passive) e.g. decides to ignore and rationalize injustice. Therefore, the positive

relation between failure of various facets of performance appraisal and retaliation might be a result

of dissatisfaction from Performance appraisal system or perceived unfairness in adopted

procedures. The two fundamental principles of fairness theory of Folger and Cropanzano (1998)

also supports the results as accountability suggests at the perception of injustice, the victim pursues

to fix the blame of offense by determining whether any negative event occur e.g. failure of

performance appraisal purposes. Second, if there is some control violation occur by the supervisor

and lastly the results are based on some violation in fair and ethical standards. Second principle is

counterfactual thinking, in which, an individual can (cognitively) alter a part of an event and

evaluate the consequence or result in a situation of that type. Therefore, the negative relation

between performance appraisal purposefulness failure and in-role performance and positive relation

of retaliation is due to counterfactual thinking of individual or his persuasiveness to blame someone

/ procedure for the injustice.

The results of this empirical study has indicated that determinants of performance appraisal

purposes failure (administrative, developmental, strategic and role definition purposefulness failure)

has a positive impact on overall injustice perceptions. As literature suggests that the administrative

186

purposes of performance appraisal includes the use of PA for compensation management,

promotion of decision making, retention of termination decisions, and identification of individual

performance, redundancy, and poor performance. The Development purposes include identifying

individual training needs, providing performance feedback, identifying transfers and allocations,

and determining the pros and cons of people. As Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, (2012)

suggests, evaluation is a sensitive issue that often triggers negative psychological reactions such as

resistance, denial, aggression, or depression, especially if the evaluation is negative. Therefore, a

high degree of knowledge of failure to use appraisal purposes may lead to a negative assessment of

the appraisal (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000). It is also suggested that evaluation is often negative

(DeNisi & Murphy, 2017). For example, (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000) argues that a salary

increment can even lead to negative feelings if the increase is considered unfair or minimal.

Similarly, other publications on wage satisfaction show that compensation relative to others is

related to employee compensation systems, evaluation systems and labor attitudes (eg Lowery,

Petty and Thompson, 1995). In fact, the impact of perceived evaluation on employee responses

may depend on the impartiality of the PA process (ie, procedural justice) and the outcome (justice

of distribution) to produce a positive response when there is a sense of justice and injustice

perception (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000, Rowland & Hall, 2012). The justice literature shows that

individual exhibit more severe responses towards cognitive reactions rather than behavioral

reactions when deals with injustice. Fairness theory also suggests that in response to failure of

performance appraisal purposes the perception of injustice becomes stronger based on

accountability (blame) and counterfactual thinking (interpretations of negative event).

187

The results of hypothesis-3 (a and b) depicts a positive and significant relationship with strategic

purposes of performance appraisal failure and injustice perception. Normally Strategic purposes

involves planning for individuals; accessing the training needs; estimating the goal achievement

motives; measuring personnel system; reinforcing authority; structure; and identification of

development needs in the organization and if the organization fails to implement its strategy in true

sense it can damage the justice perception of employees. The relationship can be explained using

the Goal-setting theory explains that individual’s behaviors are goal directed and if goals are

ambiguous and does not linked with organizational strategy; it will harm the justice perceptions of

employees. For example Caruth & Humphreys, (2008)argued that the execution of an effective

strategy has emerged as key source to achieve a sustainable competitive edge in modern

organizations; and without having a consistent effort to align and implement strategy in various

functions of organization (i.e. performance appraisal), even a well-planned strategy may be

ineffectual. Performance appraisal are the critical organizational tools used to measure the

organizational performance and the performance may only be evaluated when measured with

standards or objectives, so strategic aspects of performance appraisal are crucial to for the justice

related [perception of individuals. Michlitsch (2000) explained that Strategic implementation of

performance goals can be accomplished through the people with high-performance.

The organizational justice theory suggests that maintaining justice in procedures adopted for

performance appraisal appears to be critical to maintain the legitimacy at institutional level because

the individual receives certain outcomes in result of appraisal decisions. Rowland & Hall, (2012)

discussed that organizations have certain goals and to achieve these goals they have to build a

culture where focus on employee growth can be enhanced through designing appraisals focused on

188

that purpose. The performance appraisal depicts the organizational value system. Suppose in case

of the appraisal’s contribution in the achievement of organizational goals, the organization requires

to have a clear understandings of causes of appraisal ‘why’ perspective and the way to fit it with

strategy and organizational culture ‘how’ perspective. He further suggests that in this case there is

a need of a fair Appraisal system and also it seems to be fair. There can be Conflicts between

appraisers and appraises during the appraisal process because of having less clear appraisal criteria

(Kim, 2016).

Similarly the research shows that raters and subordinates reacts negatively if there is a difference in

indicated purposes of performance appraisal and the perceived outcomes ( (Ikramullah, Shah,

Khan, Ul Hassan, & Zaman, 2012; Gabris & Ihrke, 2001). Research also suggests that if individuals

are not appropriately rewarded (promotion, pay, recognition) for meeting or exceeding the

performance standards, then it will weeken the performance appraisal and career advancement

linkage (Ikramullah, Shah, Khan, Ul Hassan, & Zaman, 2012).

The results shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between role definition

purposes and injustice perceptions. According to Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, (2007) Role

definition explains the degree to which different job behaviors have a clear definition of

employee’s social environment. To what extent employee’s role expectations are clear and

understandable; individuals validate their abilities and the efforts they put to meet with

performance expectations. However, if employees are not well aware from management

expectations of performance then they will not put desired efforts and abilities in workplace

behavior. Therefore the role definition aspect of performance appraisal depicts that it is not only

189

important to have the willingness to perform a job (motivation) but also the knowing what is

expected from you on the job and how and when to apply the required abilities. Kyendibaiza, F.N.

(2009) found there is significant relationship between role clarity and justice, the findings suggest

that if the job roles will not be clearly defined the individual justice perceptions will be damage so

the results of the study are incongruence with previous researches.

Results of study supported the mediating role of overall injustice perception for Retaliation but

does not support the mediation of overall injustice perception for In-role Performance. The results

of the study supports the studies, which explore the injustice perception as mediator. For instance,

Piccoli and De Witte (2015) examined Distributive injustice as mediator between the job insecurity

and emotional exhaustion and found a positive and significant results. Cheng S., (2014) also found

the justice / injustice as mediator between between administrative performance appraisal practices

and organizational commitment. Similarly, Zhang & Agarwal, (2009) The mediating roles of

organizational justice on the relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an

investigation in China. Previous research also inclined to examine justice as a mediator among

different attitudes and behaviors such as Bagdadli, Roberson & Paoletti, 2006; Kim & Kim 2013;

Gillet, Fouquereau & Bonnaud-Antignac, 2013and Shih Yu (Cheryl) Cheng, 2014).

Moreover, the results showed that overall injustice perception mediates between all purposes of

performance appraisal (e.g. perceived administrative purposes failure, perceived developmental

purposes failure, perceived strategic purposes failure and role definition purposes failure) and

retaliation. The previous research (Ambrose, Wo, & Griffith, 2015; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b;

Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002) showed the mediation of justice towards retaliatory

behavior.

190

The results of study for overall injustice perception and in-role performance showed a negative

relationship. The study depicts that injustice enhance the in-role performance. Therefore according

to the justice theory, a perceived failure of performance appraisal purposes will harm the justice

perception of individual and resultantly he / she decreases their contribution towards the

organization and in role performance level decreases. Results of the study also supports the positive

relationship between overall injustice perception and retaliation. Prior justice research shows that

Perceived injustice on workplace may have severe consequences on individual’s cognitions (e.g.

sense making), emotions (e.g. anger, guilt, shame), behaviors (e.g. retaliation) and employee health

(Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009). Therefore, because of perceived injustice in the distribution of

performance appraisal rewards, information, tasks, assignment, decision making may enhance the

perception of failure of performance appraisal purposes and may foster the individual to show

retaliation behavior at workplace.

The results showed that perceived organizational support moderated the relationship between

different performance appraisal purposes failure (e.g. perceived administrative purposes failure,

perceived developmental purposes failure, strategic purposes failure and role definition purposes

failure) and injustice perceptions, the relationship postulated in hypothesis-5-(a, b, c, d), such that there

is more positive relationship when an individual had high level of perceived organizational support

than when he or she had a low level of perceived organizational support.

Generally, this is the first research that is examining the moderating role of perceived organizational

support in the context of perceived performance appraisal purposes failure e.g. perceived administrative

purposes failure, perceived developmental purposes failure, strategic purposes failure and role

191

definition purposes failure) and overall injustice perceptions. The results of the study are

consistent with existing theories of organizational justice. The justice Literature provided the evidence

that all justice dimension are related with perceived organizational support, such as Moorman, Blakely, &

Niehoff, (1998) discussed that Fair procedures should make a significant contribution to perceived

organizational support because procedures are generally considered under the control of the organization.

The distribution justice implies the equitable distribution of results, procedural justice is related to the

process used to determine the distribution of results, and interactive justice refers the individual is treated

during decision-making treatment of organization. The research showed distributive and interactional

justice are less related to perceived organizational support than procedural justice and therefore may be

more attributable to specific events (Kurtessis, et al., Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic

Evaluation of Organizational Support Theory, 2015). According to the fairness theory, if individual

perceives supervisor as offender for wrongdoing after deciding accountability and counterfactual thinking

then perceived organizational support (an organizational factor) may moderate the relationship between

performance appraisal purposefulness failure and injustice perceptions. Moreover, under an uncertain

environment with greater pressure on job, the employees are more likely to perceive positive

organizational outcomes like fairness reactions, perceived equity, supervisory support and trust on

employer negatively. Such situations may foster the employees to build cognitions that support the

organizational actions favourable to the organization and not beneficial for the employees in

particular (Kurtessis, et al., Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of

Organizational Support Theory, 2015).

In the present context where we examined a specific form of social exchange, namely perceived

organizational support, we found a similar effect, such that individuals with higher perceived

192

organizational support were more inclined to build injustice perceptions in response to organizations

failure to achieve the purposes of performance appraisal , But such failure is inconsistent with their

faith in organizations policies, which resultantly motivate them to minimize the injustice perception and

restore their positive view.

5.2 STUDY CONTRIBUTION TO THE CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE:

This study provides a reference for the existing literature in the field of human resource

management and organizational behavior, the failure of the purposes of performance appraisal,

and the overall injustice perception. The main contributions of study are discussed below:

First, this research extends the performance appraisal literature by discussing all four purposes of

performance appraisal, which has not previously discussed together. Previous research evidence

has only suggested two dimensions (e,g administrative and developmental purposes) of

performance appraisal. Whereas, the other two namely role-definition and strategic purposes

remained relatively untouched. Therefore, this current study covered this research gap. Moreover,

this research has introduced the concept of performance appraisal purposefulness failure (a

negative aspect of performance appraisal purposes) and studied its impact on important

organizational outcomes (e.g. In-role Performance and Retaliation) which has not previously

studied in the context of performance appraisal or its purposefulness. The findings of this study

depicts that performance appraisal purposefulness failure predicts the in-role performance and

retaliation positively, whereas a negative relationship with in-role performance was proposed.

The second contribution of this research was to introduce perceived organizational support (POS)

as moderator between the purposefulness failure of performance appraisal. Several studies

193

evaluated the POS as moderator among different organizational variables like perceived job

autonomy and turnover intention, between the LMX, job satisfaction, and job performance,

between Organizational Stressors and Organizational Citizenship bеhaviour, between Emotional

Labor / Outcome Relations, between organizational justice and objective measurement of

cardiovascular health. However, this research has testified POS as moderator between the

relationship of various facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failurе and perceived overall

injustice, which was not previously studied. The findings of current study proved that POS

moderates the proposed relationships.

Another contribution of this study was to test the overall injustice as mediator between the various

facets of performance appraisal purposefulness failure and In-role performance and retaliation,

which has not discussed in prior studies. Research on organizational justice has been around for

about thirty years, and the dimensions of organizational justice are still being discussed, from two-

factor to three-factor or four-factor models, as well as the recent model of integrated justice

perception (Colquitt, 2012). The previous literature is evident that organizational justice/injustice

perceptions serves as mediator among different organizational variables. This research tested the

overall injustice as mediator and the findings of the study have highlighted overall injustice

perceptions as a partial mediator in the mentioned relationship that has not been investigated in the

previous literature.

The study also have Methodological contributes as it has used time lag design, as most of existing

researches in the context are cross sectional. Moreover, the study measured the in-role performance

on peer reported responses.

194

5.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The research findings have some practical implications for businesses; particularly it suggests two

important consequences of performance appraisal purposes failure e.g. in-role performance and

retaliation. The study suggest the managers to carefully apply the performance appraisal to avoid its

purposefulness failure. As there is a reform pressure in public sector particularly in civil service,

performance appraisal failure might lead to injustice perception that may instigate the negative

attitudinal and behavioral problems in employees. Retaliation as a consequent for performance

appraisal purposefulness failure may be detrimental for the organization. Therefore, the businesses,

particularly in public sector should make comprehensive strategies to avoid perceived performance

appraisal purposefulness failurе. An understanding of PA purposes will enable the managers to

distinguish between various purposes and rate the employee accordingly.

The findings also suggest that managers should take care of employees overall injustice perceptions

as their goal and evaluate employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal mechanisms

regularly through, for example, 360 feedback system.. The study provides the insights to managers

how employees accumulate various injustice perceptions and respond toward organization. This

evaluation can build mutual trust and commitment between the employee and their supervisors that

will come in handy when failures arise.

The organizations should make the policies that can enhance the perceived organizational support,

as study suggests that a high POS can mitigate the injustice perceptions and its negative

consequences.

195

It is essential for businesses to have a performance appraisal system consisting on all the necessary

characteristics important to achieve the organizational strategy (e.g. administrative purposes,

developmental, role definition and strategic purposes) and targeting to all stakeholders including

managers, subordinates, and top management, who have strategic responsibilities.

5.4 STUDY LIMITATIONS:

The results of the present study should be interpreted with some important limitations in mind. For

example, this research collected data from 400 respondents only across different occupational

groups, however it would be desirable to replicate these finding using a larger sample. Secondly,

there is no direct scale available to study performance appraisal purposefulness failure and overall

injustice perceptions so the proxy is used for anchoring. It should be noted that in the fixed-effects

model, due to the measurement error of independent variables, the attenuation problem may occur.

These errors cause the estimated coefficients to move downward, resulting in a small coefficient

(Angrist & Pischke, 2008). Therefore, the results given here may be interpreted as the lower limit

of the real effect. In addition, in large time lag surveys, due to time and budget constraints, shorter

measures of overall injustice perception applied may be a cause of greater measurement error and

lower internal consistency. Gosling, Rentfrow and Swann (2003) point out that the use of short

scales may be inevitable in surveys with limited time and budget, however, even though shorter

scales can achieve acceptable psychometric properties such as retest reliability and discriminant

validity, previous studies have also reported significant differences comparing with larger scales in

relations of reliability (Rammstedt & John, 2007). Further research should use longer scales of

overall injustice perception to confirm whether insignificant mediation effects of injustice

perceptions are due to low-scale consistency.

196

5.5 FUTURE RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

Although this study is based on a large, representative time-based data set, there are still some

limitations that provide some avenues for future research. First, we have no information to assess

whether it is based entirely on subjective or objective performance indicators or both. Therefore,

further research may analyze whether the results presented here are moderated by the objectivity of

the process.

Second, I have discussed how potential appraisal purposes failure may affect in-role performance

and retaliation and propose more detailed analysis as a potential channel. Further research should

explore in greater detail further mechanisms to facilitate the assessment of the impact on In-role

performance and retaliation or some other behaviors or attitudes, as well as by collecting

longitudinal data that can be used to assess the background of the process (eg, goal clarity or

underlying mechanisms).

Third, the current study tested on overall injustice perception as mediator but there are other

variables that are needed to be investigated in future research other attitudinal, cognitive and

motivational variables can be examined to better recognition of underlying mechanisms of in-role

performance as well as retaliatory behavior among employees like negative emotions or

opportunism, job stress, political intentions, and justice sensitivity. Similarly, this research

examined POS as moderator; however, other moderators like trust, justice climate, motivation,

uncertainty and LMX etc. may be tested in future researches.

Fourth, the study showed a negative linkage between injustice perceptions and in-role performance,

so the relationship should be tested in some other settings or even with some larger sample to

generalize it for Pakistani Society. Moreover, the mediating effects of injustice perception was not

197

fully proved particularly its relation with retaliation was very weak, as compare to in-role

performance so it can also be testified in future studies with other related variables like CWB.

Another important future direction of research is to independently validate and test the Urdu

version of the instrument because the translated Urdu version is used to supplement the original

version so that the instrument easily understands the bilingual object.

5.6 CONCLUSION:

Summing up the research, the PA researchers have suggested four performance appraisal

purposes: administrative, developmental, and strategic and role definition. However, to the best of

our knowledge, these purposes have never been applied simultaneously particularly in failure

sense to develop a framework of injustice cognitions of PA systems’ influences on

organizational outcomes. Building on the justice theory, the present study proposed a framework

revealing a holistic view of all consequences of the f a i l u r e o f PA systems in an integrative

manner.

Due to the lack of proper theory on the effectiveness of performance appraisal systems, this

research attempts for the first time to propose a comprehensive framework for knowing the

underlying mechanisms behind the ineffectiveness of performance appraisal systems in public

sector of Pakistan based on the injustice perception framework.

198

6. REFERENCE

Abu-Doleh, J., & Weir, D. (2007). Dimensions of performance appraisal systems in

Jordanian private and public organizations. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 18(1), 75-84. doi:10.1080/09585190601068334

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequality in social exchange. (L. Berkowitz, Ed.) Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 267299.

Afzali, M., Nouri, J. M., Ebadi, A., Khademolhoseyni, S. M., & Rejeh, N. (2017).

Perceived Distributive Injustice, the Key Factor in Nurse’s Disruptive Behaviors:

A Qualitative Study. Journal of Caring Sciences, 6(3), 237-247.

doi:10.15171/jcs.2017.023

Alam, S. M., Watson, D. A., & Alvi, M. S. (2008). Human resource management for

good governance: Building local government capacity for effective service

delivery. Faisalabad, Pakistan: City District Government, Faisalabad.

Ambrose, M. L. (2009a). Assessing roadblocks to justice: A model of fair behavior in

organizations. (J. J. Martocchio, Ed.) Research in Personnel and Human

Resources Management, 28, 219-263.

Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice

conceptually distinct? In J. &. Greenberg, Handbook of Organizational Justice

(pp. 59-84). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009b). The role of overall justice judgments in

organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94(2), 491-500.

Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace:

The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 89, 947-965.

Ambrose, M. L., Wo, D. H., & Griffith, M. D. (2015). Overall Justice: Past, Present, and

Future. In R. S. Cropanzano, & M. L. Ambrose, The Oxford Handbook of Justice

in the Workplace (pp. 109-135). New York: Oxford University Press.

Aslam, U., Ilyas, M., Imran, M. K., & Rahman, U. U. (2016). Detrimental effects of

cynicism on organizational change: an interactive model of organizational

cynicism (a study of employees in public sector organizations). Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 29(4), 580-598.

Aycan, Z. (2001). Human resource management in Turkey: Current issues and future

challenges. International Journal of Manpower, 22(3), 252-260. Retrieved from

http://doi.org/10.1108/01437720110398347

199

Barclay, L. J., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). Healing the Wounds of Organizational Injustice:

Examining the Benefits of Expressive Writing. Journal of Applied Psychology,

94(2), 511-523. doi:10.1037/a0013451

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-82. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3806354

Baruch, Y. (1996). Self performance appraisal vs direct-manager appraisal: A case of

congruence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(6), 50-65.

Basavanthapa, B. T. (2003). Nursing education. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical

Publishers.

Becker, T. E. (2005, July). Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in

Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations.

Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289.

doi:10.1177/1094428105278021

Beugré, C. (2007). A Cultural Perspective of Organizational Justice (Illustrated ed.).

IAP.

Bilal, A. R., Rafi, N., & Khalid, S. (2017, April). Detrimental Causes and Consequences

of Organizational Injustice in The Workplace: Evidence From Public Sector

Organizations. Pakistan Business Review, 114-137.

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(3).

Boswell, W., & Boudreau, J. (2002). Separating the developmental and evaluative

performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 391-412.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining

reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.

Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining

reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.

Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Oxford University press.

Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st Century Human Resources

Function: It's the Talent, Stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24(4), 17. Retrieved

200

from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/7716999/21st-century-human-

resources-function-talent-stupid

Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives.

Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western Publishing Company.

Caruth, D. L., & Humphreys, J. H. (2008). Performance appraisal: essential

characteristics for strategic control. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(3), 24-32.

doi:DOI 10.1108/13683040810900377

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance

appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field

investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615-633.

Cheng, K. H., & Cascio, W. (2009). Performance-appraisal beliefs of Chinese employees

in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. International Journal of Selection &

Assessment, 17(3), 329-333.

Cheng, S. Y. (2014). The mediating role of organizational justice on the relationship

between administrative performance appraisal practices and organizational

commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8),

1131-1148. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.816864

Chiang, F., & Birtch, T. (2010). Appraising Performance across Borders: An Empirical

Examination of the Purposes and Practices of Performance Appraisal in a Multi-

Country Context. Journal Of Management Studies. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486

Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2018, January). The roles of informational

unfairness and political climate in the relationship between dispositional envy and

job performance in Pakistani organizations. Journal of Business Research, 82,

117-126. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.006

Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-

directed behavior. Research in personnel and human resources management,

10(2), 121-185.

Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance

appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130-135.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.130

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). he role of justice in organizations: A meta-

analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 86, 278-321.

Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice; A construct

validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

201

Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? (J.

G. Colquitt, Ed.) Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., & Ng, Y. K. (2001). Justice at the

millennium: A metaanalytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 861, 425-445.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012).

Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or

trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1-15.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., &

Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic

test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 98(2), 199-236.

Colquitt, J. A., Zipayb, K. P., Lynchc, J. W., & Outlaw, R. (2018). Bringing “The

Beholder” center stage: On the propensity to perceive overall fairness.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 159-177.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.08.001

Cook, J., & Crossman, A. (2004). Satisfaction with performance appraisal systems: A

study of role perceptions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(5), 526-541.

Cropanzano, R. (2001). ustice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (illustrated ed.,

Vol. 2). (R. Cropanzano, Ed.) Psychology Press.

Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and Distributive Justice Are More

Similar Than You Think: A Monistic Perspective And Research Agenda. In J.

Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano, Advances in Organizational Justice (pp. 119-151).

Stanford, CA: Standford University press.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The Management of

Organizational Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34-48.

DeNisi, A. S., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2000). Design performance appraisal systems to

improve performance. (E. A. Locke, Ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.

DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance Appraisal and Performance

Management: 100 Years of Progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1-13.

doi:doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085

Duke, A. B., Goodman, J. M., Treadway, D. C., & Breland, J. W. (2009). Perceived

Organizational Support as a Moderator of Emotional Labor/Outcomes

Relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1013-1034.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00470.x

202

Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2013). Perceived job autonomy and turnover intention: The

moderating role of perceived supervisor support. European Journal of Work and

organizational Psychology, 22(5), 563-573. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.667215

Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance

appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12(4), 555-578.

doi:doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00070-0

Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support From the Top: Supervisors’ Perceived

Organizational Support as a Moderator of Leader–Member Exchange to

Satisfaction and Performance Relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,

92(2), 321-330. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.321

Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance

evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship

components. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 146-163. Retrieved

from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.006

Flint, D. H. (1999). The role of organizational justice in multi-source performance

appraisal: Theory based applications and directions for research. Human Resource

Management Review, 9(1), 1-20.

Gabris, G. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2000). Improving employee acceptance toward

performance appraisal and merit pay systems: The role of leadership credibility.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 41-53.

Giangreco, A., Carugati, A., Sebastiano, A., & Tamimi, H. A. (2012). War outside,

ceasefire inside: An analysis of the performance appraisal system of a public

hospital in a zone of conflict. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(1), 161-170.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340-342. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.340

Greenberg, J. (1987, January 1). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories.

Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22. doi:10.5465/AMR.1987.4306437

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal

of Management, 16(2), 399-432. Retrieved from

http://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208

Greenberg, J. (1993). The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational

Classes of Organizational Justice. Justice in the workplace(4), 79-103. Retrieved

from

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237106635_The_Social_Side_of_Fairnes

s_Interpersonal_and_Informational_Classes_of_Organizational_Justice

203

Guest, D. E. (2004). The Psychology of the Employment Relationship: An Analysis

Based on the Psychological Contract. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 541-555.

Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00187.x

Harrington, J. R., & Lee, J. H. (2015). What Drives Perceived Fairness of Performance

Appraisal? Exploring the Effects of Psychological Contract Fulfillment on

Employees’ Perceived Fairness of Performance Appraisal in U.S. Federal

Agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 214-238. Retrieved from

http://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014564071

Hauenstein, N. M., McGonigle, T., & Flinder, S. W. (2001). A meta-analysis of the

relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice: Implications for

justice research. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13(1), 39-56.

Hayes. (2017, July 22). Are there limitations when using AMOS or the PROCESS macro

for SPSS to test for moderation? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_limitations_when_using_AMOS_or

_the_PROCESS_macro_for_SPSS_to_test_for_moderation

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. . New York: NY: Guilford.

Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2009). Fair Today, Fair Tomorrow? A Longitudinal

Investigation of Overall Justice Perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,

1185-1199.

Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contract and organizational

citizenship behavior in China: investigating generalizability and instrumentality.

The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 311-321. Retrieved from

http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.

Ikramullah, M., Shah, B., Khan, S., Ul Hassan, F., & Zaman, T. (2012). Purposes of

Performance Appraisal System: A Perceptual Study of Civil Servants in District

Dera Ismail Khan Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management,

7(3), 142.

Iqbal, M. Z. (2012). EXPANDED DIMENSIONS OF THE PURPOSES AND USES.

Asian Academy of Management Journal, 17(1), 41-63.

Iqbal, M. Z., Akbar, S., & Budhwar, P. (2014). Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal:

An Integrated Framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1-24.

doi:10.1111/ijmr.12050

Iqbal, M. Z., Akbar, S., Budhwar, P., & Shah, S. A. (2019). Effectiveness of performance

appraisal: Evidence on the utilization criteria. Journal of Business Research, 101,

285-299. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.035

204

Iqbal, M. Z., Rehan, M., Fatima, A., & Nawab, S. (2017). The Impact of Organizational

Justice on Employee Performance in Public Sector Organization of Pakistan.

International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(3), 1-6.

doi:10.4172/2162-6359.1000431

Jain, A. K., Giga, S. I., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). Perceived organizational support as a

moderator in the relationship between organisational stressors and organizational

citizenship behaviors. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21(3),

313-334.

Jawahar, I. M. (2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal

reactions. Journal of Labor Research, 28(4), 735-744. doi:10.1007/s12122-007-

9014-1

Kampkötter, P. (2016). Performance appraisals and job satisfaction. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-25.

doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1109538

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley.

Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=8RRHAAAAMAAJ&pgis=1

Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: measurement,

modeling, and method bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708-723.

Retrieved from Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal

reactions: measurement, modeling, and methttp://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.85.5.708

Khan, F. (2009, March 18). Impact of Afghan War on Pakistan. Retrieved 2016, from

http://www.pkhope.com/impact-of-afghan-war-on-pakistan/

Kim, S. E., & Rubianty, D. (2011). Perceived Fairness of Performance Appraisals in the

Federal Government: Does It Matter? Review of Public Personnel Administration,

31, 329-348. doi:10.1177/0734371X11428903

Kim, T., & Holzer, M. (2015). Public Employees and Performance Appraisal: A Study of

Antecedents to Employees’ Perception of the Process. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 1-24. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0734371X14549673

Ko, J., & Hur, S. (2014). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and

managerial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on

social exchange theory. Public Administration Review, 74(2), 176-187.

Konow, J. (2009). Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis

of justice. Social Choice and Welfare, 33(1), 101-127. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0348-2

205

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet Henrica,

C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual Frameworks of Individual Work

Performance. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856-

866. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763

Korsgaard, A. M., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation:

The Role of lnstrumental and Non-Instrumental Voice in Performance Appraisal

Discussions. Journal of Management, 21(4), 657-669.

Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C.

S. (2015). Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of

Organizational Support Theory. Journal of Management. doi:DOI:

10.1177/0149206315575554

Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C.

S. (2015). Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of

Organizational Support Theory. Journal of Management, 20(10), 1-31.

doi:10.1177/0149206315575554

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87(1), 72-

107.

Landy, F. J., Barnes, J., & Murphy, K. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and

accuracy of performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751-754.

Le Roy, J. (2010). Sentiment d’injustice et comportements contreproductifs au travail:

déterminants cognitifs, contextuels et dispositionnels. Paris Ouest: Thèse de

Doctorat en psychologie.

Lee, H.-R., Murrmann, S. K., Murrmann, K. F., & Kim, K. (2010). Organizational Justice

as a Mediator of the Relationships Between Leader-Member Exchange and

Employees' Turnover Intentions. Journal of Hospitility and Marketing

Management, 19(2), 97-114. doi:10.1080/19368620903455237

Lerner, M., & Miller, D. (1978). Just World research and the attribution processes:

Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond Fairness: A Theory of

Allocation Preferences. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond

Fairness: A Theory of Allocation Preferences. Retrieved from

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/245584272_Beyond_Fairness_A_Theory

_of_Allocation_Preferences.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of Leader-Member Exchange:

An Empirical Assessment through Scale Development. Journal of Management,

24(1), 43-72. doi:10.1177/014920639802400105

206

Lin, Y.-C., & Kellough, J. E. (2018). Performance Appraisal Problems in the Public

Sector: Examining Supervisors’ Perceptions. Public Personnel Management, 1-

24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018801045

Lind, E. A. (2001a). Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in

organizational relations. In J. &. Greenberg, Advances in organizational justice

(pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lind, E. A. (2001b). Thinking critically about the justice judgments. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 220-226.

Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of

uncertainty management. (B. M. Kramer, Ed.) Research in organizational

behavior, 24, 181-222.

Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of

uncertainty management. In B. M. Kramer, Research in Organizational Behavior

(Vol. 24, pp. 181-223). Boston: Elsevier.

Long, C. S., Kowang, T. O., Khairuzzaman, W., Ismail, W., & Rasid, S. Z. (2013). A

Review on Performance Appraisal System: An Ineffective and Destructive

Practice. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(7), 887-891.

doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.14.7.2174

Longenecker, C. (1997). Why managerial performance appraisals are ineffective: Causes

and lessons. Journal of Career Development International, 2(5), 212-218.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the

indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. MacKinnon,

D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limiMultivariate

Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.

Mani, B. G. (2002). Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case

study. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 141-159.

Masterson, S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. (2000). Integrating justice and

social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work

relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748.

McEvoy, G. M. (1990). Public sector managers' reactions to appraisals by subordinates.

Public Personnel Management, 19(2), 201-212.

Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2017). What motivates deviant behavior in the

workplace? An examination of the mechanisms by which procedural injustice

affects deviance. Motivation and Emotion, 41(1), 51-68.

doi:doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9584-4

207

Milliman, J., Nason, S., Zhu, C., & De Cieri, H. (2002). An exploratory assessment of the

purposes of performance appraisals in North and Central America and the Pacific

Rim. Human Resource Management, 41, 87-102.

Motowildo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A Theory of Individual

Differences in Task and Contextual Performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-

83. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1

Mulvaney, M. A., McKinney, W. R., & Grodsky, R. (2012). Appraisai System for

Municipai Agencies: A Case Study. Public Personnei Management, 41(3).

Muqadas, F., Rehman, M., Aslam, U., & Rahman, U. U. (2017). Exploring the

Challenges, Trends, and Issues for Knowledge Sharing: A Study on Employees in

Public Sector Universities. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management

System, 47(1), 2-15.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,

Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.vn/books/about/Understanding_Performance_Appraisal.

html?id=CnpuE09Vit0C&pgis=1

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance Appraisal: An Organizational

Perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship

between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy

of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.

Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P., & Panayotopoulou, L. (2011). Organizational justice and

employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial

Training, 35(8), 826-840. doi:10.1108/03090591111168348

Pooyan, A., & Eberhardt, B. J. (1989). Correlates of performance appraisal satisfaction

among supervisory and non-supervisor employees. Journal of Business Research,

19(3), 215-226. doi:DOI: 10.1016/0148-2963(89)90020-9

Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for

indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77-98.

Probst, T. M., Petitta, L., Barbaranell, C., & Austin, C. (2018). Safety-Related Moral

Disengagement in Response to Job Insecurity: Counterintuitive Effects of

Perceived Organizational and Supervisor Support. Journal of Business Ethics.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4002-3

Prowse, P., & Prowse, J. (2009). The dilemma of performance appraisal. 13(4), 69-77.

doi:10.1108/13683040911006800

208

Rineer, J. R., Truxillo, D. M., Bodner, T. B., Hammer, L. B., & Kraner, M. A. (2017).

The moderating effect of perceived organizational support on the relationships

between organizational justice and objective measures of cardiovascular health.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(3), 399-410.

doi:10.1080/1359432X.2016.1277207

Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A

technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 32(1), 89.

Roberts, G. E., & Pavlak, T. (1996). Municipal government personnel professionals and

performance appraisal: Is there consensus on the characteristics of an effective

appraisal system? Public Personnel Management, 25, 379-408.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract

breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

21(5), 525-546. doi:10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::aid-job40>3.0.co;2-t

Rosen, C., Chang, C., Johnson, R., & Levy, P. (2009). Perceptions of the organizational

context and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing perspectives.

Behavior and Human. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597808000800

Rowland, C. A., & Hall, R. D. (2012). Organizational justice and performance: is

appraisal fair? EuroMed Journal of Business, 280-293. doi:DOI

10.1108/14502191211265334

Rupp, D. E., Shapiro, Folger, R., Skarlicki, D. P., & Shao, R. (2017). A critical analysis

of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for

reassessment? he Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 919-959. Retrieved

from http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0051

Saad, S. K., & Elshaer, I. A. (2017, June 05). Organizational Politics and Validity of

Layoff Decisions: Mediating Role of Distributive Justice of Performance

Appraisal. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(8), 805-828.

doi:doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1320257

Saunders, M. N., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2009). Research Methods for Business

Students. Prentice Hall.

Scheuerman, H. L., Hegtvedt, K. A., & Johnson, C. (2017). “It’s Not My Fault!” Status,

Attributions, and Perceptions of Injustice: The Case of Custodians and Teachers.

Journal of Sociological Spectrum, 37(5), 299-318.

doi:doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2017.1348277

209

Schneider, B., & Klein, K. J. (1994). What is enough? A systems perspective on

individual organizational perfromance linkages. (D. H. Harris, Ed.) Washington,

DC: National Academies Press.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation

Modeling. New York London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Schwab, D. (2005). Research Methods for Organizational Studies. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Selvarajan, R., & Cloninger, P. (2008). The importance of accurate performance

appraisals for creating ethical organizations. The Journal of Applied Business

Research, 24(3), 39-44.

Selvarajan, T. T., & Cloninger, P. A. (2012). Can performance appraisals motivate

employees to improve performance? A Mexican study. The International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 23(15), 3063-3084. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637069

Sholihin, M., & Pike, R. (2009). Fairness in performance evaluation and its behavioural

consequences. Accounting and Business Research, 39(4), 397-413. Retrieved

from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2009.9663374

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Shrout, Mediation in experimental and

nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological

Methods, 7, 422-445.

Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: the effects

of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(3), 432-443.

Skarlicki, D., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,

procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-

443.

Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome

Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review.

Social Justice Research, 16(4), 309-341.

Steiner, D. D., Trahan, W. A., Haptonstahl, D. E., & Valérie Fointiat. (2006). The Justice

of Equity, Equality, and Need in Reward Distributions: A Comparison of French

and American Respondents. In P. u. Grenoble (Ed.), internationale de

psychologie sociale (p. 158). Retrieved August 12, 2017, from

https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2006-1-page-

49.htm

210

Stephan, W. G., & Dorfman, P. W. (1989). Administrative and Developmental Functions

in Performance Appraisals: Conflict or Synergy? Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 10(1), 27-41. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1001_4

Stewart, V., & Stewart, A. (1977). Practical performance appraisal. Westmead, UK:

Gower Press.

Stone, A. M. (2015). Uncertainty Management Theory. In The International

Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 1-8). USA: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Taris, T. W. (2006, October 23). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective

performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work & Stress, 20(4), 316-334.

doi:10.1080/02678370601065893

Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due

Process in Performance Appraisal: A Quasi-Experiment in Procedural Justice.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 495. Retrieved from

http://doi.org/10.2307/2393795

Tee, E. Y., Ramis, T., Fernandez, E. F., & Paulsen, N. (2017). Responding to Injustice:

Perception, Anger, and Identification as Drivers of Collective Action. In W. J.

Zerbe, C. E. Härtel, N. M. Ashkanasy, & L. Petitta, Book Series: Research on

Emotion in Organizations (pp. 17-46). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., & Painter, D. (2006). Research in Practice: Applied

Methods for the Social Sciences (illustrated, reprint ed.). (M. J. Terre Blanche, M.

Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter, Eds.) Juta and Company Ltd.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,

N.J., 150.

Thompson, L. L. (2003). The Social Psychology of Organizational Behavior: Key

Readings (Illustrated ed.). (L. L. Thompson, Ed.) Psychology Press.

Thurston Jr, P. W., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal

practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201-228.

doi:10.1108/02683941011023712

Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An Integrative Perspective on Social Justice:

Distributive and Procedural Fairness Evaluations of Positive and Negative

Outcome Allocations. SocialJustice Research, 12(1), 39-64.

Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice:

Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome

allocations. Social Justice Research, 12(1), 39-64.

211

Tost, L. P., & Lind, E. A. (2010). SOUNDING THE ALARM: MOVING FROM

SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION TO SYSTEM CONDEMNATION IN THE

JUSTICE JUDGMENT PROCESS. In Fairness and Groups Research on

Managing Groups and Teams (Vol. 13, pp. 3-27). doi:l0.l 108/Sl534-

0856(2010)0000013004

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The Impact of

Psychological Contract Fulfillment on the Performance of In-Role and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206.

Retrieved from Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M.

(2003). The Impact of Psychological Contract Fulfillment on the Performance of

Inhttp://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900204

Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the information to which

People are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. (D.

D. S. W. Gilliland, Ed.) Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational

justice, 63-108.

van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness

judgments. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, 1-60.

van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. M. (2001). The Psychology of Procedural and

Distributive Justice Viewed From the Perspective of Fairness Heuristic Theory. In

R. Cropanzano, Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (Illustrated

ed., Vol. 2, pp. 49-66). Psychology Press.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the Construct of Organizational

Justice: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Relations with Work Attitudes and

Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193-203. Retrieved from

http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015820708345

Youngcourt, S. S., Leiva, P. I., & Jones, R. G. (2007). Perceived purposes of performance

appraisal: Correlates of individual- and position-focused purposes on attitudinal

outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(3), 315-343.

doi:10.1002/hrdq.1207

Zhang, H., & Agarwal, N. C. (2009). The mediating roles of organizational justice on the

relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in

China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 676-

693. doi:10.1080/09585190802707482

Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007, September). The Impact of

Psychological Contract Breach on Work-Related Outcomes: a Meta-Analysis.

Personnel Psychology, 647-680. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x

212

Zimmerman, R., Mount, M., & Goff, M. (2008). Multisource feedback and leaders’ goal

performance: moderating effects of rating purpose, rater perspective, and

performance dimension. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,

16(2), 121-133.

7. APPENDICES

APPENDIX-A: TABLES

Table 28: Results for Main Effects and Moderated regression Analysis for Perceived

Overall Injustice Perception

Model Summary

R R2 F df1 df2 P

.4448 .197 14.71 7 372 .0000

Path Coefficients

β Se t P LLCI UCLI

Constant 2.4134 .4975 4.8515 .0000 1.4353 3.3916

Step-1 perceived administrative

purposes failure (PAPF)

.2686 .0665 4.0396 .0001 .1378 .3993

Step-2 Perceived organizational

support (POS)

-.6680 .1064 -6.4674 .0000 -.8972 -.4788

Step-3 PAPF X POS -.2878 .0797 -3.6103 .0003 -.4446 -.1311

Interaction: PAPF X POS

R2 change F df1 df2 P

213

PAPF X POS .0178 13.03 1.0 372 .0003



Model Summary

R R2 F df1 df2 P

.4772 .2277 22.113 7 372 .0000

Path Coefficients

β Se t P LLCI UCLI

Constant 2.3271 .4874 4.7749 .0000 1.3687 3.2854

Step-1 perceived developmental

purposes failure (PDPF)

.3159 .0580 5.4488 .0000 .2019 .4300


support (POS)

-.5686 .1095 -5.1920 .0000 -.7839 -.3532

Step-3 PDPF X POS -.3537 .0811 -4.3637 .0000 -.5131 -.1943

Interaction: PDPF X POS


.0248 19.041 1.00 372.0 .0000

214



Model Summary

R R2 F df1 df2 P

.5942 .3531 37.49 7.0 372 .0000

Path Coefficient

β Se t P LLCI UCLI

Constant 2.3103 .4237 5.4525 .0000 1.4771 3.1435

Step-1 perceived strategic

purposes failure (PSPF)

.5495 .0551 9.9674 .0000 .4411 .6579

Step-2

Perceived

organizational support

(POS)

-.2899 .1131 -2.5640 .0107 -.5122 -.0676

Step-3 PSPF X POS -.1607 .0638 -2.5180 .0122 -.2862 -.0352

Interaction: PSPF X POS


PSPF X POS .0096 6.3403 1.0 372 .0122

215



Model Summary

R R2 F df1 df2 P

.5899 .3479 31.777 7.0 372 .0000

Path Coefficient

β Se t P LLCI UCLI

Constant 2.2887 .4507 5.0783 .0000 1.4025 3.1749

Step-1 perceived role definition

purposes failure

(PRDPF)

.5309 .0518 10.2517 .0000 .4291 .6327


support (POS)

-.3861 .1034 -3.7333 .0002 -.5895 -.1828

Step-3 PRDPF X POS -.1685 .0742 -2.2702 .0238 -.3145 -.0226

Interaction: PRDPF X POS


PRDPF X POS .0107 5.1537 1.0 372 .0238

216

Table 32: Assessment of normality

Variable min max skew kurtosis

pos8 1.000 7.000 .792 .595

pos7 1.000 7.000 .534 .367

pos6 1.000 7.000 .803 .773

pos5 1.000 7.000 .728 .394

pos4 1.000 7.000 .948 1.464

pos3 1.000 7.000 .646 .259

pos2 1.000 7.000 .729 .711

pos1 1.000 7.000 .870 .810

prdpf1 1.000 7.000 -1.397 2.317

prdpf2 1.000 7.000 -.935 .942

prdpf3 1.000 7.000 -.624 .317

pspf1 1.000 7.000 -1.208 1.580

pspf2 1.000 7.000 -1.014 1.390

pspf3 1.000 7.000 -.690 .156

pspf4 1.000 7.000 -1.053 1.284

pspf5 1.000 7.000 -.968 1.027

217


pspf6 1.000 7.000 -.944 .982

pdpf1 1.000 7.000 -1.267 1.471

pdpf2 1.000 7.000 -.789 .595

pdpf3 1.000 7.000 -1.268 1.611

papf1 1.000 7.000 -1.234 1.531

papf2 1.000 7.000 -1.152 1.266

papf3 1.000 7.000 -.976 1.017

R17 1.000 7.000 -.834 .506

R16 1.000 7.000 -.565 .661

R15 1.000 7.000 -.853 .673

R14 1.000 7.000 -1.025 1.484

R13 1.000 7.000 -.817 1.005

R12 1.000 7.000 -.690 .543

R11 1.000 7.000 -.794 .904

R10 1.000 7.000 -1.196 1.717

R9 1.000 7.000 -.773 .792

R8 1.000 7.000 -.837 .980

R7 1.000 7.000 -.660 .461

R6 1.000 7.000 -.958 1.000

R5 2.000 7.000 -.722 .065

R4 1.000 7.000 -1.171 1.841

R3 1.000 7.000 -.901 .749

218


R2 1.000 7.000 -.850 .713

R1 1.000 7.000 -.815 .687

IRP1 1.000 7.000 .784 .159

IRP2 1.000 7.000 1.262 2.161

IRP3 1.000 7.000 1.389 2.739

IRP4 1.000 7.000 1.210 1.801

IRP5 1.000 7.000 1.186 1.623

IRP6 1.000 7.000 .846 1.434

IRP7 1.000 7.000 1.483 3.902

oip1 1.000 7.000 -1.034 .590

oip2 1.000 7.000 -.824 .444

oip3 1.000 7.000 -1.047 .816

oip4 1.000 7.000 -.979 .554

oip5 1.000 7.000 -.647 .172

oip6 1.000 7.000 -.626 .113

219

APPENDIX-B: FIGURES

Figure 16: Moderated effects of Perceived organizational support between the

relationship of Perceived administrative purposefulness failure and overall injustice

percption

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Low Mod High

Per

ceiv

ed O

rgan

izat

ion

al S

up

po

rt

Perceived Administrative Purposes Failure

Low

Moderate

High

220


relationship of Perceived istrative developmental purposefulness failure and overall

injustice percption

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1 2 3

Per

ceve

d O

rgan

izat

ion

al S

up

po

rt

Perceived Developmental Purposes Failure

Low

Moderate

High

221


relationship of Perceived Strategic purposefulness failure and overall injustice

percption

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Low Mod High

Ove

rall

Inju

stic

e P

erce

pti

on

Perceived Strategic Purposes Failure

Low

Moderate

High

222


relationship of Perceived role definition purposefulness failure and overall injustice

percption

Figure 20: Plots showing homoscedasticity of data for Retaliation

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Low Mod High

Ove

rall

Inju

stic

e p

erce

pti

on

Perceive Role Definition Purposes Failure

Low

Moderate

High

223

224

Figure 21: Plots showing homoscedasticity of data for In-Role Performance

225

APPENDIX-C: QUESTIONNAIRE

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCINCES

PhD MANAGEMENT

To be filled by Appraisees

This questionnaire is designed to collect information about the employee’s perception

towards employee performance evaluation system from civil service of Pakistan. The

information shall be used as a primary data in my research, which I am conducting as a

partial requirement of my study at International Islamic University for completing my

PhD Management under the Faculty of management Sciences.

The research is to be evaluated in terms of its contribution to our understanding of the

practices of public sector institutions in Pakistan and its contribution to improvements in

these practices. Therefore, your genuine, honest, and prompt response is a valuable input

for the quality and successful completion of the research.

I will also be willing to get your permission for release of the information even when it

is meant for academic use if such permission is required by your organization.

General Instructions

• There is no need of writing your name

• In all cases where answer options are available please tick () in the appropriate

box.

• For questions that demands your opinion, please try to honestly describe as per

the questions on the space provided

Thank you, for your cooperation and timely response in advance

226

PART I: Participant Information

The following information is being collected for statistical purposes only. This

information will be combined for all respondents and analyzed at the group level.

Once the data has been received, this page will be detached from the survey and

destroyed

1. Number of years you have worked for this organization (in years)___________

2. Number of years working on this job (in years): _ 0-4 _ 5-9 _ 10-19 _ 20-30 _ 30

years or more____________

3. Position: Non-supervisory Supervisory

4. Gender: Female Male

5.

Age: Under 20 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40

41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 60 or

over 6. Educational Qualification:

_ High school graduate

_Technical school graduate

_ College Diploma

_ BA/BSc Degree

_ Masters Degree

_ PhD _ Other (please state______________________)

7. Have you been evaluated for the last one year? _ Yes _ No

If your answer to question number 7 is yes, please turn over to complete part II

227

PART II: Questions related to the performance appraisal

Listed below are statements about the practices of Employee performance Evaluation in

your organization. Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements so that

your answers to these questions will enable me to assess what you think about the

practices of performance evaluation in your organization. This part comprised of three

sections named as A, C.

Section-A: Performance appraisal purposefulness failure

Administrative Purposes Failure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1-

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

So

mew

hat

dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

agre

e o

r

dis

agre

e

So

mew

hat

agre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1) PA does not help in determining

whether to promote, retain or

terminate an employee

2) PA fails to determine what raise

someone should receive

3) The PA lacks process documents

and fails to recognizes employee

performance

2- Developmental purposes Failure

4) Performance ratings don’t let

employees know where they stand

5) Performance ratings are not use to

provide feedback about employee

performance properly.

6) Performance appraisals don’t

identify individual strengths and

weaknesses

3- Strategic Purposes Failure

7) PA does not help in doing

Personnel planning

8) PA does not help in determining

organizational training needs

9) PA does not help in Evaluating

goal achievement

10) PA does not help in Evaluating

personnel systems

11) PA does not help in Reinforcing

authority structure

12) PA does not help in Identifying

organizational development Needs

228

4- Role-definition Purposes Failure

13) PA does not provide information

about what employees are

responsible for accomplishing

14) PA does not provide information

that helps make positive changes in

the job itself”

15) PA does not help provide

information about what employees

actually do in their jobs

Section-C : Perceived organizational support

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

So

mew

hat

dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

agre

e o

r

dis

agre

e

So

mew

hat

agre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1 The organization values my contribution to its well-being.

2 The organization fails to appreciate any

extra effort from me. (R)

3 The organization would ignore any

complaint from me. (R)

4 The organization really cares about my well-

being.

5 Even if I did the best job possible, the

organization would fail to notice. (R)

6 The organization cares about my general

satisfaction at work.

7 The organization shows very little concern

for me. (R)

8 The organization takes pride in my

accomplishments at work.

*Note: Items marked with (R) are reverse-scored.

Thank you once again

229

PART III: Questions related to the Overall injustice perceptions

Below statements are aimed to measure the individual’s overall injustice perceptions

about the prеvailing PA system. Please indicate your level of agreement with the

statements so that your answers to these questions will enable me to assess what you

think about the practices of performance evaluation in your organization.

Section-B: Overall injustice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

So

mew

hat

dis

agre

e N

eith

er

agre

e o

r

dis

agre

e S

om

ewh

at

agre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

01 Overall, I’m not treated fairly by my

organization

02 In general, I can’t count on this

organization to be fair

03 In general, the treatment I receive around

here is not fair

04 Usually, the way things work in this

organization are fair ®

05 For the most part, this organization treats

its employees unfairly

06 Most of the people who work here would

say they are often treated fairly (R)



230

Part-IV

Dear Coworker:

This questionnaire is designed to collect information about the employee’s perception

towards employee performance evaluation system from civil service of Pakistan. The

study is aimed to look at how people's perceptions of their workplace affect their feelings

their jobs and influence the various ways they behave at work. You have been asked to

fill out this survey by a coworker in your workgroup or department. Please begin by

entering the secret code that your coworker created in the space provided below. Next,

please answer how you see YOUR COWORKER’S job conditions and behaviors

based on your observations, experiences, impressions, and conversations with YOUR

COWORKER. Please answer the questions by yourself, without discussing them with

your coworker. It will take between 5 and 10 minutes to complete.

Please enter the secret code created by your coworker in the blank space below.

Secret code _________________

Please do not identify yourself or your coworker (i.e., do not provide either your or your

coworker’s full first name or last name). The information that your coworker provided

regarding his/her name (first name and last initial ONLY) and your email address will not

be retained. Only the secret code will be kept. It will be used to match your answers to

the answers of your coworker.

Thank you in advance for your participation. Feel free to contact me if you have any

questions.

231

Item

No.

In-Role Performance Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The following questions concern your

perceptions about your colleague(s).

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

So

mew

hat

dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

ag

ree

or

dis

agre

e

So

mew

hat

agre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1 Adequately completes assigned duties

2 Fulfills responsibilities specified in job

description

3 Performs tasks that are expected of

him/her.

4 Meets formal performance requirements

of the job

5 Engages in activities that will directly

affect his/her performance evaluation.

6 Neglects aspects of the job he/she is

obligated to perform. (R)

7 Fails to perform essential duties. (R)


Please go through the following items and tick in one of the seven boxes. The range is

from 1 to 7 denoting 1-Never, 2 – Rarely, in less than 10% of the chances, 3 –

Occasionally, in about 30% of the chances, 4 – Sometimes, in about 50% of the chances,

5 – Frequently, in about 70% of the chances, 6 – Usually, in about 90% of the chances, 7

– Every time.

Item

No.

Retaliation Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Occ

asio

nal

ly

So

met

imes

Fre

qu

entl

y

Usu

ally

Ev

ery

tim

e

1. In my work place people on purpose,

damaged equipment or work process

2. In my work place people take supplies

home without permission

3. In my work place people waste railway

materials

4. In my work place people call in sick

when not ill

5. In my work place people speak poorly

about the organization to others

232

6. In my work place people refuse to

work on holidays or beyond office

hours when asked

7. In my work place people leave a mess

unnecessarily (do not clean up)

8. In my work place people disobey a

supervisor's instructions

9. In my work place people "talk back" to the boss

10. In my work place people gossip about the

boss

11. In my work place people spread rumors

about co-workers

12. In my work place people give a co-

worker a "silent treatment"

13. In my work place people in my work

place people fail to give a co-worker

required information

14. In my work place people try to look busy

while wasting time

15. In my work place people take an

extended tea/coffee or lunch break

16. In my work place people intentionally

work slower

17. In my work place people spend time on

personal matters while at work


Documents

Perceived Performance Appraisal Purposefulness Failure and