Procedural fairness of objective and subjective performance evaluations: Exploring the combined effects of uncertainty and trust

Empirical research on the costs and benefits of subjective compared to objective performance evaluations has produced results that remain mixed. To shed light on this debate, we examine the effects of these two types of evaluation on managers? perceived procedural fairness in different contexts combining uncertainty and trust. The purpose is, on the one hand, to identify whether one type of evaluation is perceived as fairer than the other in certain contexts and, on the other hand, to explore how these fairness judgments are formed. To address these two questions, we analyze quantitative and qualitative data collected from 418 managers with a scenario-based questionnaire. Our results show that subjective evaluations are perceived as fairer than objective ones by managers who are faced with situations of high uncertainty and who trust their superior. Conversely, objective evaluations are perceived as fairer in situations where both trust and uncertainty are low. Our results also show that managers form their fairness judgments by considering two dimensions: they perceive that subjective evaluations give them the opportunity to express their point of view, and that objective evaluations are more accurate and less biased. Overall, these results suggest that organizations can improve their performance evaluation systems, either by using criteria appropriate to the context or by acting on uncertainty and/or trust.