IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureri/22616.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Not Just Because it is Fair - The Role of Feedback Quality and Voice in Performance Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Noeverman, J.

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of feedback quality and voice in performance evaluation. A model is developed and tested in which feedback quality and voice enhance procedural fairness perceptions (procedure effects), and procedural fairness perceptions in turn lead to different positive reactions (fair process effects). Voice is distinguished in instrumental and non-instrumental voice. The findings based on questionnaire data from 60 early career accountants show that the two components of voice and feedback quality are uniquely associated with procedural fairness perceptions, and through procedural fairness with distributive justice, trust in superior, and satisfaction with the appraisal review. Beyond these fairness effects, feedback quality is directly associated with satisfaction with the appraisal review and distributive justice, while instrumental and non-instrumental voice are directly associated with interpersonal trust in supervisor. Thus, feedback quality is mainly associated with outcome-based effects, while voice primarily enhances relational effects. These findings show that feedback quality and voice serve important but different roles in performance evaluation and help promote positive attitudes and behaviour of employees beyond fair process effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Noeverman, J., 2010. "Not Just Because it is Fair - The Role of Feedback Quality and Voice in Performance Evaluation," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2010-048-ORG, 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:22616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/22616/ERS-2010-048-ORG.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, George P & Jensen, Michael C & Murphy, Kevin J, 1988. " Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 43(3), pages 593-616, July.
    2. Bentley W. MacLeod, 2003. "Optimal Contracting with Subjective Evaluation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 216-240, March.
    3. Chong M. Lau & Christen Buckland, 2001. "Budgeting—the Role of Trust and Participation: A Research Note," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 37(3), pages 369-388, October.
    4. Jan Bouwens & Laurence Van Lent, 2007. "Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 667-697, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Yuliansyah Yuliansyah & Ashfaq Ahmad Khan, 2017. "A revisit of the participative budgeting and employees’ self-efficacy interrelationship – empirical evidence from Indonesia’s public sector," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 213-230, July.

    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. Marcel Van Rinsum & Frank H.M. Verbeeten, 2012. "The impact of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on public sector managers’ motivation," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 377-396, September.
    2. Tim Hermans & Martine Cools & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2021. "The role of information accuracy and justification in bonus allocations," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 197-223, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Radtke, Robin R. & Speklé, Roland F. & Widener, Sally K., 2023. "Flourish or flounder: Do trust-centric management controls encourage knowledge sharing and team performance?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    5. 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.
    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. Luis Garicano & Luis Rayo, 2016. "Why Organizations Fail: Models and Cases," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(1), pages 137-192, March.
    8. Uwe Jirjahn & Erik Poutsma, 2013. "The Use of Performance Appraisal Systems: Evidence from Dutch Establishment Data," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 801-828, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Sebastian Goebel & Barbara Weißenberger, 2016. "The Dark Side of Tight Financial Control: Causes and Remedies of Dysfunctional Employee Behaviors," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 17(1), pages 69-101, April.
    11. Victor Maas & Raquel Torres-González, 2011. "Subjective Performance Evaluation and Gender Discrimination," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(4), pages 667-681, July.
    12. Frederiksen, Anders & Lange, Fabian & Kriechel, Ben, 2017. "Subjective performance evaluations and employee careers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 408-429.
    13. Alberto Bayo-Moriones & Jose E. Galdon-Sanchez & Sara Martinez-de-Morentin, 2017. "Performance Measurement and Incentive Intensity," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 496-546, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Alexander K. Koch & Eloïc Peyrache, 2011. "Aligning Ambition and Incentives," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 655-688.
    16. Marchegiani, Lucia & Reggiani, Tommaso & Rizzolli, Matteo, 2016. "Loss averse agents and lenient supervisors in performance appraisal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 183-197.
    17. Cuguero-Escofet, Natalia & Rosanas, Josep M., 2012. "The just design and use of management control systems as requirements for goal congruence," IESE Research Papers D/949, IESE Business School.
    18. Stephan Kramer & Frank Hartmann, 2014. "How Top-down and Bottom-up Budgeting Affect Budget Slack and Performance through Social and Economic Exchange," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 50(3), pages 314-340, September.
    19. Irene Trapp & Rouven Trapp, 2019. "The psychological effects of centrality bias: an experimental analysis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 155-189, March.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    evaluation; fair process effect; fairness; trust; voice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General
    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ems:eureri:22616. 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: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erimanl.html .

    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.