JoHMl of AnplM Piycholon

Copyiifhl 2000 by Ihe Amotean Piycholofiol Aiwculion, Inc.

0O2I-9OI0XXVS5.00 DOl: 10.10a7//D02l-90l0.>S.4.634

MOO. Vol. ISTNO. 4,634-6iO

Performance Appraisal Process and System Facets:

Relationships With Contextual Performance
Henry M, Findley

William F. Giles

Troy Sute University

Aubum University

Kevin W, Mossholder
Louisiana State University

Because appraisal-related interactions between supervisors and employees may influence more than task
perfonnance, the authors considered the potential effects of social and interpersonal processes in
performance appraisal on contextual performance. They hypothesized that performance appraisal process
and system facets wer associated with employees' contextual performance as well as with their
perceptions of appraisal accuracy. After controlling relevant variables, they found that appraisal process
facets explained variance in contextual performance and perceived accuracy beyond that accounted for
by the system facets. However, when the order of entry for the process and system variable sets was
reversed, only for perceived appraisal accuracy, as hypothesized, did the system facets account for
variance beyond that explained by the appraisal prxxess facets.

Performance appraisal has generally focused on assessing core

job responsibilities and job-specific task behaviors formally designated by the organization. However, changes occuiring in the'
nature of work and organizations, along with the recognition that
performance appraisal may serve as more than a measurement tool
(see Murphy & Cleveland, 199S). have encouraged broader
streams of research in the area. One of the more interesting of these
streams concems the concept of contextual performance (Arvey &
Murphy. 1998).
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) have argued for extending the
performance criterion domain beyond core job responsibilities and
job-specific behaviors. They defmed contextual perfonnance as a
set of interpersonal and volitional behaviors that support the social
and motivational context in which the technical core of work is
accomplished. Contextual performance is similar to Organ's
(1997) most recent formulation of organizational citizenship behavior in that it does not require that the behavior be extrarole or
that it be nonrewarded. Recently, researchers (e,g,. Van Scotter &
Motowidlo. 1996) have refmed the contextual performance construct, dividing it into two facets, l^ie first, interpersonal facilita-

tion. includes actions such as cooperation with coworkers. sensitivity to interpersonal relations, and helping behavior that assists
coworkers' performance. The second, job dedication, includes acts
like working harder than necessary, persisting in overcoming obstacles to task completion, and following organizational rules
conscientiously.
Although research shows that supervisors seek and use information about contextual performance in evaluating overall pcrtotmance (Motowidlo & Van Scotter. 1994) and that both task and
contextual performance contribute uniquely to overall performance (Conway. 1999). as yet researchers have not investigated
whether there are litiks between appraisal procedures and contextual perfonnance. The present study seeks to address this research
gap. Of particular interest is how components of perfonnance
appraisal involving interpersonal and social relationships (process
facets) and those involving features of the appraisal system (system facets) relate to employees' contextual perfonnance. We also
investigate relationships of these facets with employees' percqv
tions of appraisal accuracy. Given its links with faimess in appraisal contexts (Taylor. Tracy. Renaid. Harrison. & Carroll. 1995)
and the fact that fairness is central to social interactions (Konovsky
& l^igh. 1994). perceived appraisal accuracy appeared particularly
appropriate to examine in tandem with contextual perfonnance.

Heniy M. Fmdley, Department of Management. Troy State University;

William F. Giles. Depaitment of Management. Aubum University; Kevin
W. Mossholder, Department of Management. Louisiana State University.
The order of authorship is alphabetical, as all authors contributed equally
to this research.
Portions of this article were presented at the 1996 Southern Management
Association Meeting. New Orleans, Louisiana. We thank Michael Sturman
and Mary Konovsky for their conunents on a draft of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kevin W.
Mossholder, Department of Management. Louisiana State Univenity. Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70803-6312, Electronic mail may be sent to
kmossh@lsu.edu.

Social Context of Perfonnance Appraisal

The foundation for otir study is derived from Murphy and
Cleveland's (1995) holistic perspective of performance appraisal,
which argues for treating performance appraisal as a motivational,
communication, and social process. This view is especially ^>prt>priate for considering potential links between performance appraisal and contextual performance. Van Scotter and Motowidlo
(1996) have suggested that social and motivational dynamics un634

RESEARCH REPORTS
derlie aspects of contextual performance, AIM), Organ and Ryan
(1995) noted that employee perceptions of their treatment by the
organization and its leaders (e.g.. perceived fairness and supervisory support) are antecedents of contextual performance. Given
this line of reasoning, a logical way of exploring possible connections between perfonnance appraisal and contextual performance
IS to consider appraisal as a special form of interaction occurring
between employees and the organization, with immediate supervisors as the organization's most direct representatives to
employees.
Casting performance appraisal within this framework allows
one to consider relational elements of the appraisal process and
determine which are most likely to affect contextual performance.
A review of the relevant research makes it clear that the concepts
of faimess and respectful interpersonal treatment are keys in
understanding the types of behaviors involved in contextual performance. For example, in his discussion of the motivational basis
for these types ot behaviors. Organ (1990) suggested that faimess
perceptions play a large role in their emergence. The impact of
faimess on such behaviors has also been confirmed hv empirical
research (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky A: Pugh,
1994).

Due Process in Performance Appraisal

To determine what appraisal facets may be associated with
employees' contextual performance and perceptions of appraisal
accuracy, we examined the research literature conceming taimess
and respectful treatment in performance appraisal contexts. Fairness in performance appraisal has been conceptualized largely in
terms of due process (see Folger. Konovsky. & Cropanzano, 1992:
Taylor et al., 1995), Due process in performance appraisal involves
such behaviors as giving employees adequate notice (e.g., explaining standards in advance, getting input from employees, giving
feedback regularly), fair hearing (e.g., familianty from adequate
observation, opportunity to explain self-evaluations), and judgment based on evidence (e,g., consistent application of standards,
opportunity to appeal).
Due process considerations in performance appraisal have generally been divided into two categories, one involving the interpersonal exchanges between supervisors and employees and the
othei; conceming the structure, procedures, and policies of the
appraisal system (Folger et al., 1992i. It is interesting that in their
conceptualizations of performance appraisal. Murphy and Cleveland (1995) and colleagues (Tziner. Murphy, Cleveland, Beaudin,
& Marchand, 1998) have suggested that contextual influences in
appraisal can be put into two categories that parallel Folger et al.'s
(1992) due process delineation. They offer that proximal phenomena (e.g,. interaction pattems between supervisors and employees)
influence the appraisal process more directly, whereas distal phenomena (e.g., organization structure or culture reflecting intra- and
extra-organizational characteristics) exert less direct effects. We
used this theoretical backdrop to distingui,sh between perfonnance
appraisal features that center on the interpersonal, more proximal
aspects (labeled process facets) and those features corresponding
to more distal ones (labeled system facets).

635

Appraisal Process Facets

Several studies dealing with proximal aspects of appraisal have
also examined issues related to due process (see e,g., f-iilj:cr &
Konovsky, 1989; Korsgaard & Roberson, ly^.'^: Taylor et al,,
1995). Of these studies, Folger and Konovsky's (1989) considered
facetsobservation, feedback, and planningthat are w idely recommended for inclusion in the appraisal process. Because they
have been empirically tested and were specifically developed on
the basis of a review of the faimess literature, we chose these three
process facets for examination. In the present study, Folger and
Kono\sk\ s feedback facet is labeled/eedfeacfc/voite, as the items
in this facet involve information exchanges between employees
and supervisors (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998).
Observation assesses the degree to which supervisors adequately leam about employees' perfonnance over time and under
various conditions. Supenisory observation of employee behavior
IS consistent with two of lolgor et al.'s ()W2) due process elements, fair hearing and judgment based on evidence. Moreover,
constructs similar to supen isor observation have appeared in pasi
re,search dealing with the social context of performance appraisal
decisions (Judge i 1 crris. 1993) and with justice vanables and
organizational citizenship behavior (Nichult & Moorman, 1993),
Feedback/voice refers to the extent to which supervisors listen
to employees' views and discuss perfonnance issues with them,
Folger and Konovsky (1989) have noted that this two-way communication stresses grounding in evidence and conveys respect for
employees' input and opinions. It also enables employees to become proactive in their own appraisals, potentially bolstering their
perceptions of process faimess (Korsyaard & Roberson, 1995). A
recent meta-analytic review of session characteristics affecting
employees' appraisal reactions found feedback specificity produced the strongest effect among all session characteristics examined (Zuber & Behson. 1998),
Planning, often subsumed under the rubric of goal setting, taps
the degree to which super\isors discuss objectives for improvement and clarify performance duties with employees. Such behavior indicates respect for employees by providing advance notice of
appraisal criteria rather than surprising the employees after performance completion (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). Moreover, in
Zuber and Behson's (1998) meta-analytic review of session charactenstics, goal setting during the review session had a strong
relationship with positive employee reactions to appraisal.

Appraisal System Facets

Unfortunately, few studies have empirically examined appraisal
s\stem facets that are pertinent to due process considerations, as
compared to the number of studies investigating appraisal process
facets (Cawley et al., 1998). Appraisal system facets refer to
appraisal policies, procedures, and support provided by the organization and generally exist independently of individual supervisors' appraisal activity. After searching the relevant literature, e
selected for use four appraisal system facets from Giles, Findley,
and Feild (1997). They developed these facets on the basis of a
review of the faimess and perfonnance appraisal literatures, input
from subject-matter experts, and factor analysis. Their system
factorssystem openness, system complexity, multiple inputs,
and system commitmentare consonant with previous perfor-

636

RESEARCH REPQRTS

mance appraisal research and, as detailed below, associated with

due process issues.
System openness refers to individuals' freedom to know information contained in their appraisal files and to challenge perceived
inaccuracies. One of the factors that Greenberg (1986) developed
to assess faimess in perfonnance appraisal was ability to challenge
and rebut evaluations. Folger et al. (1992) also noted the desirability of organizations establishing appeal mechanisms for performance appraisal decisions. They suggested that the notion of a
fair hearing implies opportunities for employees to discuss performance evaluations, clarify or appeal the evaluations, and introduce
self-appraisals to provide additional infonnation.
System complexity assesses employees' difficulty in understanding how the appraisal system functions. Having system objectives
or standards that are difficult for employees to understand violates
Folger et al.'s (1992) adequate notice component of due process in
performance appraisal. When there is uncertainty about how an
appraisal system operates, employees' perceptions of the system
are less likely to be positive (Levy & Williams, 1998). In this vein,
Zuber and Behson's (1998) meta-analytic review indicated that
simple, easy-to-understand appraisal criteria were positively related to employees' appraisal-related reactions.
Multiple inputs assesses the degree to which others besides the
immediate supervisor are involved in the appraisal process. Folger
et al. (1992) suggested that multiple constituencies may hold
differing perspectives on performance-relevant behavior. It seems
that when more than one person is involved in evaluating performance, employees can arrive at a better understanding of core
perfonnance elements and ultimately achieve greater confidenceand trust in ratings on these elements.
Finally, system commitment reflects the degree to which the
appraisal system is supported by the organization. A number of
studies have noted the desirability of sufficient training during
both the implementation and maintenance stages of appraisal systems (e.g., Giles & Mossholder, 1990; Taylor, Masterson, Renard,
& Tracy, 1998). Moreover, the involvement of top management in
the performance appraisal process is likely to produce positive
reactions to appraisal from those at lower management levels.
Employees may feel unfairly treated if they are subjected to an
appraisal system that is not properly monitored and maintained.

Hypotheses
Theoty (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Tziner et al., 1998) and
em|Arical evidence (Moorman, 1991) suggest that appraisal process facets, being more interpersonal and proximal in nature, are
more likely than appraisal system characteristics to promote contextual performance. For example, Moorman (1991) found few
relationships between a company's formal procedures and behaviors related to contextual performance, but, consistent with
the proximal-distal distinction, he discovered that supervisoremployee interactions were linked with such behaviors. Therefore,
we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis la: Appraisal process facets explain significant incremental variance in contextual performance beyond that provided by appraisal system facets.
Hypothesis lb: Appraisal system facets do not explain significant
incremental variance in contextual performance beyond that fumished
by appraisal process facets.

As noted above, research suggests that dynamics influencing

employees' contextual perfonnance could also affect their perceptions of the accuracy with which appraisals are conducted (Taylor
et al., 1998; Taylor et al., 1995). We therefore investigated the
relationships of appraisal process and system factors with perceived appraisal accuracy. Assessing perceived appraisal accuracy
is a more realistic option in field research than assessing accuracy
directly (Folger et al,, 1992; Mayer & Davis, 1999).
Consistent with Hypothesis la, we anticipated that appraisal
process facets would be positively related to perceived accuracy.
Planning should encourage supervisors to set clear and consistent
standards and objectives, and feedback/voice should allow for
opportunities for clarification and two-way communication when
processing performance-relevant information. Likewise, adequate
supervisory observation should impress on employees that supervisors desire representative samples of their work behavior. However, in contrast to Hypothesis lb, we expected that the system
facets would explain variance in perceived appraisal accuracy
beyond that fumished by the process facets. Performance appraisal
systems are developed to standardize both the approach and execution of appraisals throughout the organization. Careful attention
to the design, implementation, and operation of appraisal system
facets signals that the organization wants to decrease potential
errors. Thus, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 2a: Appraisal process facets explain significant incremental variance in perceived appraisal accuracy heyond that provided by
appraisal system facets.
Hypothesis 2b: Appraisal system facets explain significant incremental variance in perceived appraisal accuracy beyond that fumished by
appraisal process facets.

Method
Participants arui Procedures
Participants in the study were teachers employed by two adjoining
school systems located in the southeastem United States. Confidentiality
was assured to survey participants, and a researcher was available during
prearranged survey sessions to answer any questions and collect completed
surveys. Supervisory personnel (principals or assistant principals) later
completed a questionnaire assessing participants' contextual perfonnance.
Of a total of 337 teachers working in the two systems, 216 chose to
participate, and complete data for 199 were ohtained. Of the study participants, 85% were female, 89% were White, and 95% were college graduates. Their mean age was 41 years, and mean tenure with the school
system was 10 years. Data from the two systems were combined to increase
the statistical power of our hypothesis tests. To confirm that this action was
justified, we tested the equality of the covariance matrices for study
variables collected within the two systems. A nonsignificant Box's M
statistic was obtained, indicating that the covariance matrices were not
different and combining the data was permissible (Hair, Anderson, Tatham,
& Black, 1995). We also tested for significant demographic (gender, race,
age, education) differences between system respondents, and found none.

Measures
A 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (strongty disagree) to 7
(strongly agree) was used for all measures unless otherwise noted. The
appraisal facet measures, four of six control variables, and perceived
appraisal accuracy were self-reported by the paiticipants. Items were coded
so that a high score indicated a greater amount of the focal construct, and

637

RESEARCH REPORTS

ings about their last appraisal rating might influence their reactions toward
appraisal facets (Nathan, Moluman, & Milliman, 1991), and tendencies
toward contextual performance and perceptions of appraisal accuracy as
well. Finally, rating-rewards linkage (4 items, e,g,, "My salary adjustments
have been closely linked to the appraisal I received") assessed the degree
to which employees perceived rewards to be connected with their performance appraisal ratings. Although procedural, as opposed to distributive,
faimess appears to be more associated with contextual performance, both
forms of faimess are often correlated (Cropanzano & Greenberg. 1997).

items composing each scale were averaged to produce scale scores. Sample
items frnn scales are provided below.
Predictor variables. In regard to the appraisal process facets, supervisor observation (S items) was assessed with Giles et al.'s (1997) measure
(e.g,, "My supervisor has adequately observed my performance during the
past year"). Feedback/voice (S items) was measured with items drawn from
a factor labeled by Folger and Konovsky (1989) as feedback (e.g,, "In my
appraisal review session, my supervisor considered my views regarding my
performance"). The four items composing the planning scale were drawn
fmta Folger and Konovsky's planning factor (e,g,, "In the appraisal session, my supervisor discussed plans and objectives to improve my
perfonnaiice"),

Analyses

llie appraisal system measures were drawn from Giles et al.'s (1997)
study, with the addition of a few items to improve scale reliabilities. These
measures were system openness (4 items, e,g,, "I can file a protest should
I feel that my perfonnance rating is wrong"), system commitment (S items.
e.g., 'The company puts forth a great deal of effort to be sure that the
appraisal system worics well"), system complexity (4 items, e.g., "The
appraisal system is too complex for the average employee to understand"),
and multiple inputs (4 items, e,g,, "My supervisor receives input from other
managers when evaluating my performance").

Hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine the hypotheses.

Contextual performance was the criterion measure for Hypotheses I a
and I b. For Hypothesis 1 a, the six control variables were entered in the first
step of the regression analysis, the four appraisal system facets in the
second step, and the three appraisal process facets in the last step. For
Hypothesis lb, the entry order of the system and process facet sets was
reversed. Except for perceived appraisal accuracy rather than contextual
performance serving as the criterion, the analyses performed for Hypotheses 2a and 2b were identical to those for Hypotheses la and lb.

Criterion variables. Contextual performance was assessed using

the 15 items composing three subscales (Courtesy. Altruism, and Conscientiousness) of Podsakoff. MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter's (1990)
organizational citizenship behavior measure. Examining Van Scotter and
Motowidlo's (1996) explication of the contextual performance dimensions
of job dedication and interpersonal facilitation revealed that Podsakoff et
al.'s conscientiousness subscale was congruent with job dedication and
their altniism and courtesy subscales were congruent with interpersonal
facilitation. Supervisors were asked to indicate their agreement that items
bom these subscales described respondents. Sample items are 'Tries to '
avoid creating problems for coworkers" (courtesy), "Helps others who
have heavy work loads" (altruism), and "Believes in giving an honest day's
woric for an honest day's pay" (conscientiousness). Perceived appraisal
accuracy (4 items) tapped the degree to which employees perceived their
performance ratings to be indicative of their woric behavior (e.g,, "My last
performance rating reflects my true performance").
Control variables. Although the adjoining school systems in our study
were under the jurisdiction of one board, we created a school system
dummy variable (0-1) to control for the possibility that unmeasured school
system differences affected our predictors or criteria. Also, because newer
teachers may be observed more closely and be prone to exhibit contextual
performance as a means of creating a positive impression, we controlled for
years of tenure with the school system.
Additional control variables were included because of findings from
previous related research. Supervisor faimess (4 items, e,g,, "My irrunediate supervisor is generally fair in his or her dealings with me") was
assessed by George's (1991) scale and reflects a supervisor's general
tendency to treat employees fairly. This measure did not concern activities
directly related to performance appraisal and controlled for the possibility
that overaU supervisory faimess might influence ratings of the appraisal
process facets (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ. 1990) or generally encourage
contextual perfonnance and perceptions of accuracy. Negative affectivity
was measured by a subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale
(Watson, Clark, & TeUegen, 1988), Respondents were asked to indicate on
a S-point Liken-type scale ranging from 1 (not at alt) to 5 (extremely) how
much dwy generally felt like each of 10 affect-descriptive adjectives (e,g.,
upset, iiriiable, hostile). This measure was used to control for employees'
general affective level, as this may be a salient antecedent of contextual
performance (Organ, 1997), Participants' most recent overaU perfonnance
rating (1 item) was measured on a 6-point Liken-type scale ranging from 5
(excellent) to 0 (poor). Because this measure was collected primarily for
administrative puipoKS, it was standardized by school system to nullify
any system diffenncea. This item was included because employees' feel-

Results
Table I reports means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations
for the study variables,' Generally, intercorrelations among variables composing the predictor variable set were low to moderate.
Coefficient alphas for all measures were above ,70, except for that
of system openness, which was ,64,
The hierarchical regression results are presented in Table 2, The
incremental, cumulative, and adjusted R^ statistics associated with
the addition of each variable set are shown. Beta weights for tests
of Hypotheses lb and 2b are identical to those displayed in the
table for Hypotheses la and 2a, as these were calculated with all
variables entered.
Support was found for Hypothesis la, which posited that appraisal process facets would explain sigtiificant incremental variance in contextual perfonnance beyond that provided by appraisal
system facets. When the process facet set was entered last in the
regression analysis, it explained a sigtiiftcant amount of incremental variance (Ai?^ = .06, p < ,01). A significant positive beta
weight was obtained for observation, supporting the expectation
that frequent observation was associated with more contextual
perfonnance. It is interesting that a significant negative beta
weight was found for planning, indicating that the more supervisors and employees discussed and clarified future perfonnance
objectives and improvements, the less contextual performance was
exhibited. Hypothesis lh posited that appraisal system facets
would not explaiti significant incremental variance in contextual
performance beyond that fumished by appraisal process facets. As
showti at the bottom of Table 2, this hypothesis was supported.
The system facets explained a nonsignificant amount of incremental variance (A/?^ = .01, ns) when entered at the last step in the
regression analysis.

' Separate confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using a sevenfactor model with the seven appraisal facet measures and a two-factor
model with the two criterion variables. Each analysis supported the viability of the variables as separate constructs. These analyses are available
from Kevin W. Mossholder,

638

RESEARCH REPORTS

Support was obtained for Hypothesis 2a. that appraisal process

facets would explain significant incremental variance in perceived
appraisal accuracy beyond that provided by appraisal system facets. When the process facet set was entered last, the incremental
variance explained was significant (A/?^ = .08. p < .01). The
positive, significant beta weights for observation and feedback/
voice indicate that more observation by supervisors and discussion
between supervisors and employees during the review session
increased employees' perceptions of appraisal accuracy. Hypothesis 2b. which posited that appraisal system facets would explain
significant incremental variance in perceived appraisal accuracy
beyond that furnished by appraisal process facets, was also supported. As shown at the bottom of Table 2. when the appraisal
system facet set was entered last, it explained additional incremental variance (A/?^ = .04. p < .05). In the system facet set. only
system openness had a significant beta weight (^ = .18. p < .05).

Discussion

vrr-, O o o sCfN ''I

' O - ^ r-i o lA "^1 ""'

rc^cix 2 S I

2gsSoo-SS

- t I-*-, r*-i C i n 3C 1^. -C '-^< O

r i o O O O O O ' ^ i O r - i

iTi o f^i <C NC r-J r J r*-, o

^
i^i O O r j o

l^

5
.2

2<
o o o o o o J

S^
^
^ ^

In line with perspectives emphasizing the social and interpersonal context of performance appraisal, we assessed the association of appraisal process and system facets with contextual performance and perceived appraisal accuracy. Considering the
results for Hypothesis la. we found supervisor observation to be
positively associated with contextual performance. This is consistent with the notion that contextual performance is more likely
when supervisors endeavor to learn about employees' work activities in total rather than assessing only formal work requirements
or relying on performance information collected impersonally
(e.g.. output totals). The appraisal process facets that pertained
more to dynamics occurring within the performance appraisal
session did not display anticipated relationships with contextual
performance. Feedback/voice was not significantly related to. and
planning displayed an unexpected negative relationship with, contextual performance. To the degree that discussing objectives and
future work improvements with supervisors focused employees'
work efforts on specific task behaviors, employees may have paid
less attention to behaviors constituting contextual performance
(see Wright. George. Famsworth. & McMahan. 1993).
Our test of Hypothesis lb found that the appraisal system facets
did not explain variation in contextual perfonnance beyond that
contributed by the process facets. The appraisal system facets have
less to do with the supervisor-employee relationship per se and
therefore are less likely to create conditions in which employees
feel the need to reciprocate gestures of concem or goodwill
through contextual performance. To the degree that employees
interpret appraisal system facets as representing the organization
as a whole, their reactions may register more readily in terms of
organizational rather than interpersonal referents (Settoon. Bennett, & Liden, 1996).
With regard to our second criterion, perceived appraisal accuracy, results for Hypothesis 2a indicated that the appraisal process
facets of supervisor observation and feedback/voice were both
positively related to perceived appraisal accuracy. These facets
signify attempts by supervisors to gather pertinent information
either directly through observation efforts or indirectly through
clarification and discussion within the appraisal session. The planning facet was not significantly related to perceived accuracy,
perhaps because it pertained more to future behavior, for which

639

RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Results for Contextual Performance
and Perceived Appraisal Accuracy
Variable and
R- statistic-

Contextual
performance (/3)

Perceived appraisal
accuracy (|3)

Entry order for Hypotheses la and 2a

Control
Negative affectivity
Performance rating
Reward linkage
Supervisor fairness
School systetn
System tenure
R- statistic
\RRAdj. R^
Appraisal system facet
System openness
System commitment
System complexity
Multiple inputs

0.06
0.08
0.12
0.21*
-0.01
0.00

.1O'
lO**
.07

0.00
-0.02
0.06

-0.09
0.02
0.11
-024'*
-0.10
0.05

.06
.06
.03

0.I8*
0.06
0.09

-on

R^ statistic
RAdj. R^
Appraisal process facet
Supervisor observation
Planning
Feedback/voice
/f- statistic
^RR'
Adj. R-

.02
.12*
.07

.08**
.14'
.10

0.21"
-0.22**
0.09

0.19*
-0.06
0.26**

.06**
.18**
.12

.08"
.22
.17

Entry order for Hypotheses 1 b and 2bsystem facets entered last

After entry of control and
process facets
/?' statistic
J?Adj. R^
After entry of control, process.
and system facets
R^ statistic
R'
Adj R^

.I7
.17
.13

.18**
.18*
.14

.01
.L8**
,12

.04*
.22"
.17

Note. N = 199. Order of entry for Hypotheses la and 2a was a.s follows:
1. controls. 2. system facets. 3. process facets. Order of entry for Hypotheses lb and 2b was as follows: 1. controls. 2 process facets. 3. system
facets. Beta weights shown are with all variables entered. AR~ = incremental R^\ R^ = cumulative R^ at that step in the regression model; Adj.
R'' cumulative adjusted /?''.
*p<.05.
*p<.01.

accuracy assessments have less meaning. As predicted by Hypothesis 2b. the set of appraisal systetn facets explained incremental
variation in perceived appraisal accuracy beyond that accounted
for by the appraisal process facets. This incremental effect is due

to system openness, which signals to employees that they have the

opportunity to correct questionable ratings Moreover, employees
may perceive that having this right would encourage supervisors to
be more accurate, as supervisors might have to defend their ratings
at a later date.
Regarding study limitations, generalizations to other organizational contexts should be made with caution, as the study was
conducted in an educational setting. Another potential limitation is
that the appraisal facets and four of the control variables were
perceptual measures gathered from respondents Thus, analyses
involving perceived appraisal accuracy could be affected by samesource method variance. However, method variance should similarly inflate relationships among all variables assessed in the same
survey, and consequently the relative extent to which process and
system facets were related to perceived appraisal accuracy should
be unaffected. A final concem is that if system facets are viewed
as constants within a school system, variability in these facets
might be restricted in comparison to that of the process facets.
However, two factors mitigate this concem. First. Murphy and
Cleveland (1995) noted that individuals react to perceived rather
than to objective aspects of the environment, and thus reactions to
environmental factors may vary within an organization. Second,
our system facets are more subjective in contrast to environmental
characteristics like organization size or number of management
levels. Murphy and Cleveland suggested that when environmental
cues are more subjective, varied reactions to them are more likely.
In line with a due process perspective, we suggest that bolstering
relational components of the appraisal process may have the largest impact on contextual performance. This idea emphasizes the
motivational or developmental role of performance appraisal
(Murphy & Cleveland. 1995). Whereas due process aspects of the
appraisal system (e.g.. right of appeal) are likely to be perceived by
employees as more under the control of the organization than
individual supervisors, the opposite is likely for appraisal processes, such as observing employee performance and conductmg
review sessions that emphasize fair and considerate interactions.
Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) have noted that the traditional focus on task specific activities may have unduly limited the
attention paid to contextual performance elements. A contribution
of the present study is that it recognizes that performance appraisal
dynamics can have repercussions on employee behavior beyond
matters of task proficiency. In teamwork settings (e.g.. Stevens &
Campion. 1999) or organic organizational structures (e.g.. Miles.
Snow. Mathews. Miles. & Coleman. 1997). employees must be
able to coordinate activities, help each other with variable workloads, and act in accordance with social norms, even though such
behaviors may not be tied specifically to task proficiency. To the
degree that organizations acknowledge the importance of such
behaviors and are able to shape them through the performance
appraisal function, greater opportunities for influencing overall
organizational effectiveness may be realized.

References
Arvey. R D.. & Murphy. K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work
%ttAn%%. Annual Review of Psychology. 49, 141-168.
Borman. W. C . & Motowidlo. S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt &
W. C. Borman (Eds.). Personnel selecium in organizJiions (pp. 71-98)
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

640

RESEARCH REPORTS

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, Joumal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615633,
Conway, J, M, (1999), Distinguishing contextual performance from task
performance of managerial jobs, Joumal of Applied Psychotogy, 84,
3-13,
Cropanzano, R,, & Greenberg, J, (1997), Progress in organizational justice:
Tunneling through the maze. In C, L. Cooper & I, T, Robertson (Eds,),
International review of industrial and organizationat psychology (pp,
317-372), New York: Wiley,
Farh, J,, Podsakoff, P, M,, & Organ, D, W, (1990), Accounting for
organizational citizenship behavior: Leader faimess and task scope
versus satisfaction, Joumal of Management, 16, 705-721,
Folger, R,, & Konovsky, M, A, (1989), Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Jourjwl, 32, 115-130,
Folger, R,, Konovsky, M, A,, & Cropanzano, R. (1992), Due process
metaphor for performance appraisal. Research in Organizationat Behavior. 14, 129-177,
George, i, M, (1991), State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosoeial
behaviors at work, Joumal of Apptied Psychotogy, 76, 299-307,
Giles, W, F., Findley, H, M., & Feild, H, S. (1997), Procedural faimess in
performance appraisal: Beyond the review session, Joumat of Business
and Psychology, 11, 493-506.
Giles, W, F., & Mossholder, K. W, (1990), Employee reactions to contextual and session components of perfonnance appraisal, Joumal of Applied Psychology, 75, 371-377,
Greenberg, J. (1986), Determinants of perceived faimess of performance
evaluations, Joumat of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342,
Hair, J, F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L,, & Black, W. C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis (4th ed,). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Judge. T. A,, & Ferris, G, R, (1993), Social context of performance
evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Joumat, 38, 80-105.
Konovsky, M, A,, & Pugh, S. D. (1994), Citizenship behavior and social
exchange. Academy of Management Joumat, 37, 656-669,
Korsgaard, M. A,, & Roberson, L. (1995), Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instmmental voice
in performance appraisal discussions, Joumat of Management, 21, 657669,
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J, R. (1998), The role of perceived system
knowledge in predicting appraisal reactions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. yo/7i/(>fOr^anizariona/B*/iavior, 19, 53-65,
Mayer, R, C , & Davis, J. H, (1999), The effect of the perfonnance
appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment,
Joumat of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136,
Mijes, R, E., Snow, C. C, Mathews, J, A,, Miles, G,, & Coleman, H, J,
(1997). Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form.
Academy of Management Executive. 77(4), 7-19,
Moorman, R, H, (1991). Relationship tetween organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do faimess perceptions influence
employee citizenship? Joumal of Applied Psychotogy, 76, 845-855,
Motowidlo, S, J., & Van Scotter, J, R, (1994), Evidence that task performance should be distinguished ftom contextual perfonnance. Joumal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480,
Muiphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N, (1995), Understanding performance

appraisal: Social, organizationat, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Nathan, B. R., Mohnnan, A, M,, & Milliman, J. (1991). Inteipenonal
relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviewi on perfbrmance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management
Joumal, 34, 352-369.
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 Joumal, 36, 527-556.
Organ, D, W, (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship
behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 72, 43-72,
Organ, D, W, (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct
clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D, W,, & Ryan, K, (1995). A meta-analytjc review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychotogy, 48, 775-800.
Podsakoff, P. M,, MacKenzie, S, B,, Moomian, R. H,, & Fetter, R. (1990),
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' tmst in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterty, I, 107-142,
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N,, & Liden, R. C, (1996), Social exchange in
organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity, Joumal of Applied Psychology, SI,
219-227.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A, (1999), Staffing work teams; Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings, Joumal of
Management, 25, 207-228,
Taylor, M, S., Masterson, S, S,, Renard, M, K,, & Tracy, K, B, (1998),
Managers' reactions to procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management Joumal, 41, 568-579,
Taylor, M, S,, Tracy, K, B,, Renard, M, K,, Hanison, J, K., & CarroU, S. J.
(1995), Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-expeoment in
procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495523,
Tziner, A,, Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J, N,, Beaudin, G., & Marchand, S,
(1998), Impact of rater beliefs regarding performance appraisal and its
organizational context on appraisal quality, Joumal of Business and
Psychology, 12, 457-467,
Van Scotter, J, R,, & Motowidlo, S, J, (1996), Interpersonal facilitation and
job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance, Joumal of
Apptied Psychotogy, 81, 525-531,
Watson, D,, Clark, L, A,, & TeUegen, A. (1988), Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales, Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Wright, P, M,, George, J, M,, Famsworth, G, S,, & McMahan, G. C.
(1993), Productivity and extra-role behavior: The effects of goals and
incentives on spontaneous helping, Joumat of AppUed Psychology, 7S,
374-381,
Zuber, E, P., & Behson, S, J, (1998, April), The relationships between
performance appraisal session characteristics and ratee reactions: A
meta-analytic study. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Received December 8, 1998 ^

Revision received September 8, 1999
Accepted September 8, 1999