IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bracre/v45y2013i3p149-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Procedural justice in managerial performance evaluation: Effects of subjectivity, relationship quality, and voice opportunity

Author

Listed:
  • Bellavance, François
  • Landry, Suzanne
  • Schiehll, Eduardo

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of subjectivity in performance evaluation on managerial perceptions of procedural justice. Using survey data from a sample of 317 managers, we examine two forms of subjectivity: use and weight of subjective performance measures and ex post flexibility in the weighting of multiple performance measures. We also examine the interaction effects of two contextual factors, superior–manager relationship quality and voice opportunity, on the association between subjectivity and perceived procedural justice. The results suggest that only the superior's use of ex post flexibility in weighting multiple performance measures adversely affects managers' perceptions of procedural justice. Moreover, superior–manager relationship quality reduces the negative effects of ex post flexibility in weighting multiple performance measures on procedural justice, whereas voice opportunity amplifies this negative effect. These findings have practical and theoretical implications, as they shed new light on the trade-off between the informative benefits and perceived unfairness of incorporating subjectivity into performance evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Bellavance, François & Landry, Suzanne & Schiehll, Eduardo, 2013. "Procedural justice in managerial performance evaluation: Effects of subjectivity, relationship quality, and voice opportunity," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 149-166.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bracre:v:45:y:2013:i:3:p:149-166
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bar.2013.06.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089083891300053X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bar.2013.06.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. HOLMSTROM, Bengt, 1979. "Moral hazard and observability," LIDAM Reprints CORE 379, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    3. Herath, Hemantha S.B. & Bremser, Wayne G. & Birnberg, Jacob G., 2010. "Joint selection of balanced scorecard targets and weights in a collaborative setting," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 45-59, January.
    4. Fulk, Janet & Brief, Arthur P. & Barr, Steve H., 1985. "Trust-in-supervisor and perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 301-313, August.
    5. Rupp, Deborah E. & Cropanzano, Russell, 2002. "The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 925-946, September.
    6. Banker, Rd & Datar, Sm, 1989. "Sensitivity, Precision, And Linear Aggregation Of Signals For Performance Evaluation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 21-39.
    7. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1994. "Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 1125-1156.
    8. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert H, 1996. "Favoritism in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 958-978, October.
    9. Moers, Frank, 2005. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 67-80, January.
    10. Tahir Nisar, 2007. "Evaluation of Subjectivity in Incentive Pay," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 31(1), pages 53-73, February.
    11. Bushman, Robert M. & Indjejikian, Raffi J. & Smith, Abbie, 1996. "CEO compensation: The role of individual performance evaluation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 161-193, April.
    12. Hartmann, Frank & Slapnicar, Sergeja, 2009. "How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 722-737, August.
    13. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Erratum to "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research" [Accounting Organizations and Society 28 (2003) 169-249]," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 815-815.
    14. Chong Lau & Kuan Wong & Ian Eggleton, 2008. "Fairness of performance evaluation procedures and job satisfaction: The role of outcome‐based and non‐outcome‐based effects," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 121-135.
    15. Libby, Theresa, 1999. "The influence of voice and explanation on performance in a participative budgeting setting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 125-137, April.
    16. Van der Stede, Wim A. & Young, S. Mark & Chen, Clara Xiaoling, 2005. "Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: The case of survey studies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(7-8), pages 655-684.
    17. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert, 1993. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 355-365, April.
    18. Bengt Holmstrom, 1979. "Moral Hazard and Observability," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 74-91, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Radovanović, Sandro & Savić, Gordana & Delibašić, Boris & Suknović, Milija, 2022. "FairDEA—Removing disparate impact from efficiency scores," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(3), pages 1088-1098.
    2. Phimai Nuansi & Piya Ngamcharoenmongkol, 2021. "Proactive Complaint Management: Effects of Customer Voice Initiation on Perceived Justices, Satisfaction, and Negative Word-of-Mouth," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    3. Thuy‐Van Tran & Janne Järvinen, 2022. "Understanding the concept of subjectivity in performance evaluation and its effects on perceived procedural justice across contexts," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 4079-4108, September.
    4. Gan, Huiqi & Park, Myung S. & Suh, SangHyun, 2020. "Non-financial performance measures, CEO compensation, and firms’ future value," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 213-227.
    5. Vincent K. Chong & Isabel Z. Wang & Gary S. Monroe & Liam Strike & Feida (Frank) Zhang, 2023. "The effect of non‐financial performance measures, organisational politics and political skill on job performance: Evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2557-2595, June.
    6. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    7. van Rinsum, M., 2019. "Utilizing Incentives and Accountability: In Control in Control?," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA 2019-078-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam..
    8. Bicudo de Castro, Vincent, 2017. "Unpacking the notion of subjectivity: Performance evaluation and supervisor discretion," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 532-544.
    9. Paula M. G. Veen-Dirks & Marijke C. Leliveld & Wesley Kaufmann, 2021. "The effect of enabling versus coercive performance measurement systems on procedural fairness and red tape," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 269-294, June.
    10. Daniel Magalhães Mucci & Ann Jorissen & Fabio Frezatti & Diógenes de Souza Bido, 2021. "Managerial Controls in Private Family Firms: The Influence of a Family’s Decision Premises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burney, Laurie L. & Henle, Christine A. & Widener, Sally K., 2009. "A path model examining the relations among strategic performance measurement system characteristics, organizational justice, and extra- and in-role performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 305-321, April.
    2. Golman, Russell & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2012. "Performance evaluation inflation and compression," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 534-543.
    3. Christoph Feichter & Isabella Grabner, 2020. "Empirische Forschung zu Management Control – Ein Überblick und neue Trends [Empirical Management Control Reserach—An Overview and Future Directions]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 149-181, June.
    4. Kelly K. Wang & Maria Cadiz Dyball & Andy Wang, 2023. "The link between formality and procedural fairness: The influences of precision, sensitivity and role clarity," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(S1), pages 1571-1598, April.
    5. Martin, Rachel & Thomas, Tyler, 2022. "Target setting with compensation discretion: How are ex ante targets affected when superiors have ex post discretion?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Other publications TiSEM 46a62de7-d051-4620-93bb-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Thuy‐Van Tran & Janne Järvinen, 2022. "Understanding the concept of subjectivity in performance evaluation and its effects on perceived procedural justice across contexts," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 4079-4108, September.
    8. Isabella Grabner & Frank Moers, 2013. "Managers' Choices of Performance Measures in Promotion Decisions: An Analysis of Alternative Job Assignments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 1187-1220, December.
    9. Neale G. O'Connor & F. Johnny Deng & Pan Fei, 2015. "Observability and Subjective Performance Measurement," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(2), pages 208-237, June.
    10. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Discussion Paper 2003-130, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Jurjen J.A. Kamphorst & Otto H. Swank, 2018. "The role of performance appraisals in motivating employees," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 251-269, June.
    12. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    13. Ikram, Atif & Li, Zhichuan (Frank) & Minor, Dylan, 2023. "CSR-contingent executive compensation contracts," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    14. Bol, Jasmijn C. & Kramer, Stephan & Maas, Victor S., 2016. "How control system design affects performance evaluation compression: The role of information accuracy and outcome transparency," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 64-73.
    15. Sholihin, Mahfud & Pike, Richard & Mangena, Musa & Li, Jing, 2011. "Goal-setting participation and goal commitment: Examining the mediating roles of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust in a UK financial services organisation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-146.
    16. Madhav V. Rajan & Stefan Reichelstein, 2006. "Subjective Performance Indicators and Discretionary Bonus Pools," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 585-618, June.
    17. Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Guliang Tang, 2018. "Differential Weighting of Objective Versus Subjective Measures in Performance Evaluation: Experimental Evidence," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 129-148, January.
    18. Margaret A. Abernethy & Henri C. Dekker & Axel K‐D. Schulz, 2015. "Are Employee Selection and Incentive Contracts Complements or Substitutes?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 633-668, September.
    19. Margaret A. Abernethy & Chung-Yu Hung & Laurence van Lent, 2020. "Expertise and Discretionary Bonus Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 415-432, January.
    20. Andreas J. Steur & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Properties of feedback mechanisms on digital platforms: an exploratory study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(4), pages 479-526, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:bracre:v:45:y:2013:i:3:p:149-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.