The performance appraisal congruency scale: an assessment of person‐environment fit

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to construct an instrument to assess employee‐perceived performance appraisal congruency and then to use the scale to predict employee attitudes about their performance appraisal systems.Design/methodology/approachThe scale was developed using 28 subject‐matter experts and researcher knowledge of the extant literature. The scale was then completed by a sample of 135 individuals using internet administration.FindingsRegression analyses showed that performance appraisal congruency predicted overall system satisfaction, perceived usefulness and fairness. Supplementary analyses of the performance appraisal congruency items were conducted so as to refine the original instrument for future research.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations of the study include: the interviews conducted to develop the instrument were conducted in a single organization; the study used an internet sample that was made up of university alumni; all measures were self‐report; and single item measures were used as the criterion variables. The findings support the utility of the use of the P‐E fit model in performance management systems. Future research should assess outcomes that would be of interest to organizations, such as the relationships with performance system satisfaction and employee commitment and turnover.Practical implicationsIf employees perceive that the performance appraisal system is congruent with their expectations, then positive outcomes should be expected.Originality/valueWhile congruency has been linked to important outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and actual turnover, it has not been used within a performance appraisal framework.

A structural equation model for measuring human resource management practices in the Jordanian organisations

“…Performance appraisal systems cannot be generalised or easily transplanted from one organisation to another. They should be specifically designed to match the values and characteristics of an organisation and its employees (Whiting et al, 2008).…”

“…Based on, Edgar and Geare (2005), only the ten items associated with recruitment and selection and five items to measure training and development (five questions in each category) were taken into consideration, because they are considered to be appropriate to be used in Jordan. Second, a scale on performance appraisal developed by Whiting et al (2008) was employed based on their Canadian study to assess the congruency between employees' current and ideal performance appraisal perspectives. The aim of their study was to analyse the relationship between performance appraisal congruency associated with satisfaction, usefulness and fairness and organisational attitudes.…”

“…Besides, the results indicated no multi-collinearity and singularity problems. Hence, the study reported in this paper, employed three different scales to measure four HRM practices as these three scales have been employed in various studies achieving a high and acceptable reliability level (Edgar and Geare, 2005;Whiting et al, 2008;Chew, 2004).…”

Antecedents of Performance Appraisal and Organizational Performance in Water and Sanitation Companies in Kenya: A Case of Murang’a Water and Sanitation Company limited

“…Several researchers suggest that there are many other negative consequences associated with giving feedback, such as time pressure, disturbances, unfortunate procedures and social anxiety (Theresa & Sulsky, 2008). Feedback from managers is related to increased performance and job motivation.…”

Analyzing the Effect of Performance Appraisal Errors on Perceived Organizational Justice

“…Employees do not enjoy receiving a poor performance appraisal, but if they perceive that procedures and social interactions are fair, then discrepancies will be less likely to influence their attitudes and behaviors toward their supervisors and their organizations (Thurston and McNall, 2009). Perceived congruency between current and ideal performance appraisal systems predict a variety of relevant performance appraisal attitudinal variables (Whiting et al, 2008).…”