JoHMl of AnplM PiycholonMOO. Vol. ISTNO. 4,634-6iO

Copyiifhl 2000 by Ihe Amotean Piycholofiol Aiwculion, Inc.0O2I-9OI0XXVS5.00 DOl: 10.10a7//D02l-90l0.>S.4.634

Performance Appraisal Process and System Facets:Relationships With Contextual Performance

Henry M, FindleyTroy Sute University

William F. GilesAubum University

Kevin W, MossholderLouisiana State University

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

Performance appraisal has generally focused on assessing corejob responsibilities and job-specific task behaviors formally des-ignated by the organization. However, changes occuiring in the'nature of work and organizations, along with the recognition thatperformance appraisal may serve as more than a measurement tool(see Murphy & Cleveland, 199S). have encouraged broaderstreams of research in the area. One of the more interesting of thesestreams concems the concept of contextual performance (Arvey &Murphy. 1998).

Borman and Motowidlo (1993) have argued for extending theperformance criterion domain beyond core job responsibilities andjob-specific behaviors. They defmed contextual perfonnance as aset of interpersonal and volitional behaviors that support the socialand motivational context in which the technical core of work isaccomplished. Contextual performance is similar to Organ's(1997) most recent formulation of organizational citizenship be-havior in that it does not require that the behavior be extrarole orthat it be nonrewarded. Recently, researchers (e,g,. Van Scotter &Motowidlo. 1996) have refmed the contextual performance con-struct, dividing it into two facets, l^ie first, interpersonal facilita-

Heniy M. Fmdley, Department of Management. Troy State University;William F. Giles. Depaitment of Management. Aubum University; KevinW. Mossholder, Department of Management. Louisiana State University.The order of authorship is alphabetical, as all authors contributed equallyto this research.

Portions of this article were presented at the 1996 Southern ManagementAssociation Meeting. New Orleans, Louisiana. We thank Michael Sturmanand 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. Ba-ton Rouge. Louisiana 70803-6312, Electronic mail may be sent tokmossh@lsu.edu.

tion. includes actions such as cooperation with coworkers. sensi-tivity to interpersonal relations, and helping behavior that assistscoworkers' performance. The second, job dedication, includes actslike working harder than necessary, persisting in overcoming ob-stacles to task completion, and following organizational rulesconscientiously.

Although research shows that supervisors seek and use infor-mation about contextual performance in evaluating overall pcrtot-mance (Motowidlo & Van Scotter. 1994) and that both task andcontextual performance contribute uniquely to overall perfor-mance (Conway. 1999). as yet researchers have not investigatedwhether there are litiks between appraisal procedures and contex-tual perfonnance. The present study seeks to address this researchgap. Of particular interest is how components of perfonnanceappraisal involving interpersonal and social relationships (processfacets) and those involving features of the appraisal system (sys-tem facets) relate to employees' contextual perfonnance. We alsoinvestigate relationships of these facets with employees' percqvtions of appraisal accuracy. Given its links with faimess in ap-praisal 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 particularlyappropriate to examine in tandem with contextual perfonnance.

Social Context of Perfonnance Appraisal

The foundation for otir study is derived from Murphy andCleveland'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 ap-praisal and contextual performance. Van Scotter and Motowidlo(1996) have suggested that social and motivational dynamics un-

634

RESEARCH REPORTS 635

derlie aspects of contextual performance, AIM), Organ and Ryan(1995) noted that employee perceptions of their treatment by theorganization and its leaders (e.g.. perceived fairness and supervi-sory support) are antecedents of contextual performance. Giventhis line of reasoning, a logical way of exploring possible connec-tions between perfonnance appraisal and contextual performanceIS to consider appraisal as a special form of interaction occurringbetween employees and the organization, with immediate super-visors as the organization's most direct representatives toemployees.

Casting performance appraisal within this framework allowsone to consider relational elements of the appraisal process anddetermine which are most likely to affect contextual performance.A review of the relevant research makes it clear that the conceptsof faimess and respectful interpersonal treatment are keys inunderstanding the types of behaviors involved in contextual per-formance. For example, in his discussion of the motivational basisfor these types ot behaviors. Organ (1990) suggested that faimessperceptions play a large role in their emergence. The impact offaimess on such behaviors has also been confirmed hv empiricalresearch (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky A: Pugh,1994).

Due Process in Performance Appraisal

To determine what appraisal facets may be associated withemployees' contextual performance and perceptions of appraisalaccuracy, we examined the research literature conceming taimessand respectful treatment in performance appraisal contexts. Fair-ness in performance appraisal has been conceptualized largely interms of due process (see Folger. Konovsky. & Cropanzano, 1992:Taylor et al., 1995), Due process in performance appraisal involvessuch behaviors as giving employees adequate notice (e.g., explain-ing standards in advance, getting input from employees, givingfeedback regularly), fair hearing (e.g., familianty from adequateobservation, opportunity to explain self-evaluations), and judg-ment based on evidence (e,g., consistent application of standards,opportunity to appeal).

Due process considerations in performance appraisal have gen-erally been divided into two categories, one involving the inter-personal exchanges between supervisors and employees and theothei; conceming the structure, procedures, and policies of theappraisal system (Folger et al., 1992i. It is interesting that in theirconceptualizations of performance appraisal. Murphy and Cleve-land (1995) and colleagues (Tziner. Murphy, Cleveland, Beaudin,& Marchand, 1998) have suggested that contextual influences inappraisal can be put into two categories that parallel Folger et al.'s(1992) due process delineation. They offer that proximal phenom-ena (e.g,. interaction pattems between supervisors and employees)influence the appraisal process more directly, whereas distal phe-nomena (e.g., organization structure or culture reflecting intra- andextra-organizational characteristics) exert less direct effects. Weused this theoretical backdrop to distingui,sh between perfonnanceappraisal features that center on the interpersonal, more proximalaspects (labeled process facets) and those features correspondingto more distal ones (labeled system facets).

Appraisal Process Facets

Several studies dealing with proximal aspects of appraisal havealso 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) consideredfacets—observation, feedback, and planning—that are w idely rec-ommended for inclusion in the appraisal process. Because theyhave been empirically tested and were specifically developed onthe basis of a review of the faimess literature, we chose these threeprocess facets for examination. In the present study, Folger andKono\sk\ s feedback facet is labeled/eedfeacfc/voite, as the itemsin this facet involve information exchanges between employeesand supervisors (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998).

Observation assesses the degree to which supervisors ade-quately leam about employees' perfonnance over time and undervarious conditions. Supenisory observation of employee behaviorIS consistent with two of lolgor et al.'s ()W2) due process ele-ments, fair hearing and judgment based on evidence. Moreover,constructs similar to supen isor observation have appeared in pasire,search dealing with the social context of performance appraisaldecisions (Judge i 1 crris. 1993) and with justice vanables andorganizational citizenship behavior (Nichult & Moorman, 1993),

Feedback/voice refers to the extent to which supervisors listento employees' views and discuss perfonnance issues with them,Folger and Konovsky (1989) have noted that this two-way com-munication stresses grounding in evidence and conveys respect foremployees' input and opinions. It also enables employees to be-come proactive in their own appraisals, potentially bolstering theirperceptions of process faimess (Korsyaard & Roberson, 1995). Arecent meta-analytic review of session characteristics affectingemployees' appraisal reactions found feedback specificity pro-duced the strongest effect among all session characteristics exam-ined (Zuber & Behson. 1998),

Planning, often subsumed under the rubric of goal setting, tapsthe degree to which super\isors discuss objectives for improve-ment and clarify performance duties with employees. Such behav-ior indicates respect for employees by providing advance notice ofappraisal criteria rather than surprising the employees after per-formance completion (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). Moreover, inZuber and Behson's (1998) meta-analytic review of session char-actenstics, goal setting during the review session had a strongrelationship with positive employee reactions to appraisal.

Appraisal System Facets

Unfortunately, few studies have empirically examined appraisals\stem facets that are pertinent to due process considerations, ascompared to the number of studies investigating appraisal processfacets (Cawley et al., 1998). Appraisal system facets refer toappraisal policies, procedures, and support provided by the orga-nization and generally exist independently of individual supervi-sors' appraisal activity. After searching the relevant literature, «eselected for use four appraisal system facets from Giles, Findley,and Feild (1997). They developed these facets on the basis of areview of the faimess and perfonnance appraisal literatures, inputfrom subject-matter experts, and factor analysis. Their systemfactors—system openness, system complexity, multiple inputs,and system commitment—are consonant with previous perfor-

636 RESEARCH REPQRTS

mance appraisal research and, as detailed below, associated withdue process issues.

System openness refers to individuals' freedom to know infor-mation contained in their appraisal files and to challenge perceivedinaccuracies. One of the factors that Greenberg (1986) developedto assess faimess in perfonnance appraisal was ability to challengeand rebut evaluations. Folger et al. (1992) also noted the desir-ability of organizations establishing appeal mechanisms for per-formance appraisal decisions. They suggested that the notion of afair hearing implies opportunities for employees to discuss perfor-mance evaluations, clarify or appeal the evaluations, and introduceself-appraisals to provide additional infonnation.

System complexity assesses employees' difficulty in understand-ing how the appraisal system functions. Having system objectivesor standards that are difficult for employees to understand violatesFolger et al.'s (1992) adequate notice component of due process inperformance appraisal. When there is uncertainty about how anappraisal system operates, employees' perceptions of the systemare less likely to be positive (Levy & Williams, 1998). In this vein,Zuber and Behson's (1998) meta-analytic review indicated thatsimple, easy-to-understand appraisal criteria were positively re-lated to employees' appraisal-related reactions.

Multiple inputs assesses the degree to which others besides theimmediate supervisor are involved in the appraisal process. Folgeret al. (1992) suggested that multiple constituencies may holddiffering perspectives on performance-relevant behavior. It seemsthat when more than one person is involved in evaluating perfor-mance, employees can arrive at a better understanding of coreperfonnance elements and ultimately achieve greater confidence-and trust in ratings on these elements.

Finally, system commitment reflects the degree to which theappraisal system is supported by the organization. A number ofstudies have noted the desirability of sufficient training duringboth the implementation and maintenance stages of appraisal sys-tems (e.g., Giles & Mossholder, 1990; Taylor, Masterson, Renard,& Tracy, 1998). Moreover, the involvement of top management inthe performance appraisal process is likely to produce positivereactions to appraisal from those at lower management levels.Employees may feel unfairly treated if they are subjected to anappraisal system that is not properly monitored and maintained.

Hypotheses

Theoty (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Tziner et al., 1998) andem|Arical evidence (Moorman, 1991) suggest that appraisal pro-cess facets, being more interpersonal and proximal in nature, aremore likely than appraisal system characteristics to promote con-textual performance. For example, Moorman (1991) found fewrelationships between a company's formal procedures and behav-iors related to contextual performance, but, consistent withthe proximal-distal distinction, he discovered that supervisor-employee interactions were linked with such behaviors. Therefore,we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis la: Appraisal process facets explain significant incremen-tal variance in contextual performance beyond that provided by ap-praisal system facets.

Hypothesis lb: Appraisal system facets do not explain significantincremental variance in contextual performance beyond that fumishedby appraisal process facets.

As noted above, research suggests that dynamics influencingemployees' contextual perfonnance could also affect their percep-tions of the accuracy with which appraisals are conducted (Tayloret al., 1998; Taylor et al., 1995). We therefore investigated therelationships of appraisal process and system factors with per-ceived appraisal accuracy. Assessing perceived appraisal accuracyis a more realistic option in field research than assessing accuracydirectly (Folger et al,, 1992; Mayer & Davis, 1999).

Consistent with Hypothesis la, we anticipated that appraisalprocess facets would be positively related to perceived accuracy.Planning should encourage supervisors to set clear and consistentstandards and objectives, and feedback/voice should allow foropportunities for clarification and two-way communication whenprocessing performance-relevant information. Likewise, adequatesupervisory observation should impress on employees that super-visors desire representative samples of their work behavior. How-ever, in contrast to Hypothesis lb, we expected that the systemfacets would explain variance in perceived appraisal accuracybeyond that fumished by the process facets. Performance appraisalsystems are developed to standardize both the approach and exe-cution of appraisals throughout the organization. Careful attentionto the design, implementation, and operation of appraisal systemfacets signals that the organization wants to decrease potentialerrors. Thus, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 2a: Appraisal process facets explain significant incremen-tal variance in perceived appraisal accuracy heyond that provided byappraisal system facets.

Hypothesis 2b: Appraisal system facets explain significant incremen-tal variance in perceived appraisal accuracy beyond that fumished byappraisal process facets.

Method

Participants arui Procedures

Participants in the study were teachers employed by two adjoiningschool systems located in the southeastem United States. Confidentialitywas assured to survey participants, and a researcher was available duringprearranged survey sessions to answer any questions and collect completedsurveys. Supervisory personnel (principals or assistant principals) latercompleted a questionnaire assessing participants' contextual perfonnance.Of a total of 337 teachers working in the two systems, 216 chose toparticipate, and complete data for 199 were ohtained. Of the study partic-ipants, 85% were female, 89% were White, and 95% were college grad-uates. Their mean age was 41 years, and mean tenure with the schoolsystem was 10 years. Data from the two systems were combined to increasethe statistical power of our hypothesis tests. To confirm that this action wasjustified, we tested the equality of the covariance matrices for studyvariables collected within the two systems. A nonsignificant Box's Mstatistic was obtained, indicating that the covariance matrices were notdifferent 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. Theappraisal facet measures, four of six control variables, and perceivedappraisal accuracy were self-reported by the paiticipants. Items were codedso that a high score indicated a greater amount of the focal construct, and

RESEARCH REPORTS 637

items composing each scale were averaged to produce scale scores. Sampleitems frnn scales are provided below.

Predictor variables. In regard to the appraisal process facets, supervi-sor observation (S items) was assessed with Giles et al.'s (1997) measure(e.g,, "My supervisor has adequately observed my performance during thepast year"). Feedback/voice (S items) was measured with items drawn froma factor labeled by Folger and Konovsky (1989) as feedback (e.g,, "In myappraisal review session, my supervisor considered my views regarding myperformance"). The four items composing the planning scale were drawnfmta Folger and Konovsky's planning factor (e,g,, "In the appraisal ses-sion, my supervisor discussed plans and objectives to improve myperfonnaiice"),

l l ie appraisal system measures were drawn from Giles et al.'s (1997)study, with the addition of a few items to improve scale reliabilities. Thesemeasures were system openness (4 items, e,g,, "I can file a protest shouldI 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 theappraisal system worics well"), system complexity (4 items, e.g., "Theappraisal system is too complex for the average employee to understand"),and multiple inputs (4 items, e,g,, "My supervisor receives input from othermanagers when evaluating my performance").

Criterion variables. Contextual performance was assessed usingthe 15 items composing three subscales (Courtesy. Altruism, and Consci-entiousness) of Podsakoff. MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter's (1990)organizational citizenship behavior measure. Examining Van Scotter andMotowidlo's (1996) explication of the contextual performance dimensionsof job dedication and interpersonal facilitation revealed that Podsakoff etal.'s conscientiousness subscale was congruent with job dedication andtheir altniism and courtesy subscales were congruent with interpersonalfacilitation. Supervisors were asked to indicate their agreement that itemsbom these subscales described respondents. Sample items are 'Tries to 'avoid creating problems for coworkers" (courtesy), "Helps others whohave heavy work loads" (altruism), and "Believes in giving an honest day'sworic for an honest day's pay" (conscientiousness). Perceived appraisalaccuracy (4 items) tapped the degree to which employees perceived theirperformance ratings to be indicative of their woric behavior (e.g,, "My lastperformance rating reflects my true performance").

Control variables. Although the adjoining school systems in our studywere under the jurisdiction of one board, we created a school systemdummy variable (0-1) to control for the possibility that unmeasured schoolsystem differences affected our predictors or criteria. Also, because newerteachers may be observed more closely and be prone to exhibit contextualperformance as a means of creating a positive impression, we controlled foryears of tenure with the school system.

Additional control variables were included because of findings fromprevious related research. Supervisor faimess (4 items, e,g,, "My irrunedi-ate supervisor is generally fair in his or her dealings with me") wasassessed by George's (1991) scale and reflects a supervisor's generaltendency to treat employees fairly. This measure did not concern activitiesdirectly related to performance appraisal and controlled for the possibilitythat overaU supervisory faimess might influence ratings of the appraisalprocess facets (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ. 1990) or generally encouragecontextual perfonnance and perceptions of accuracy. Negative affectivitywas measured by a subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale(Watson, Clark, & TeUegen, 1988), Respondents were asked to indicate ona S-point Liken-type scale ranging from 1 (not at alt) to 5 (extremely) howmuch 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 contextualperformance (Organ, 1997), Participants' most recent overaU perfonnancerating (1 item) was measured on a 6-point Liken-type scale ranging from 5(excellent) to 0 (poor). Because this measure was collected primarily foradministrative puipoKS, it was standardized by school system to nullifyany system diffenncea. This item was included because employees' feel-

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

Analyses

Hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine the hypotheses.Contextual performance was the criterion measure for Hypotheses I aand I b. For Hypothesis 1 a, the six control variables were entered in the firststep of the regression analysis, the four appraisal system facets in thesecond step, and the three appraisal process facets in the last step. ForHypothesis lb, the entry order of the system and process facet sets wasreversed. Except for perceived appraisal accuracy rather than contextualperformance serving as the criterion, the analyses performed for Hypoth-eses 2a and 2b were identical to those for Hypotheses la and lb.

Results

Table I reports means, standard deviations, and intercorrelationsfor the study variables,' Generally, intercorrelations among vari-ables composing the predictor variable set were low to moderate.Coefficient alphas for all measures were above ,70, except for thatof system openness, which was ,64,

The hierarchical regression results are presented in Table 2, Theincremental, cumulative, and adjusted R^ statistics associated withthe addition of each variable set are shown. Beta weights for testsof Hypotheses lb and 2b are identical to those displayed in thetable for Hypotheses la and 2a, as these were calculated with allvariables entered.

Support was found for Hypothesis la, which posited that ap-praisal process facets would explain sigtiificant incremental vari-ance in contextual perfonnance beyond that provided by appraisalsystem facets. When the process facet set was entered last in theregression analysis, it explained a sigtiiftcant amount of incremen-tal variance (Ai?^ = .06, p < ,01). A significant positive betaweight was obtained for observation, supporting the expectationthat frequent observation was associated with more contextualperfonnance. It is interesting that a significant negative betaweight was found for planning, indicating that the more supervi-sors and employees discussed and clarified future perfonnanceobjectives and improvements, the less contextual performance wasexhibited. Hypothesis lh posited that appraisal system facetswould not explaiti significant incremental variance in contextualperformance beyond that fumished by appraisal process facets. Asshowti at the bottom of Table 2, this hypothesis was supported.The system facets explained a nonsignificant amount of incremen-tal variance (A/?^ = .01, ns) when entered at the last step in theregression analysis.

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

638 RESEARCH REPORTS

vrr-, — Ooo — sCfN — ' ' I' — O -^ r-i — o lA "̂ 1 ""'

r c ^ c i x — — 2 S — — I

2 g s « S £ o o - S S

- t I-*-, r*-i »C in 3C 1^. -C '-̂ < Or 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

5.2

o o o o — o o — —J

• a

•— ^

^ ^

l^

2 <

I §•

S^

Support was obtained for Hypothesis 2a. that appraisal processfacets would explain significant incremental variance in perceivedappraisal accuracy beyond that provided by appraisal system fac-ets. When the process facet set was entered last, the incrementalvariance explained was significant (A/?^ = .08. p < .01). Thepositive, significant beta weights for observation and feedback/voice indicate that more observation by supervisors and discussionbetween supervisors and employees during the review sessionincreased employees' perceptions of appraisal accuracy. Hypoth-esis 2b. which posited that appraisal system facets would explainsignificant incremental variance in perceived appraisal accuracybeyond that furnished by appraisal process facets, was also sup-ported. As shown at the bottom of Table 2. when the appraisalsystem facet set was entered last, it explained additional incremen-tal variance (A/?^ = .04. p < .05). In the system facet set. onlysystem openness had a significant beta weight (^ = .18. p < .05).

Discussion

In line with perspectives emphasizing the social and interper-sonal context of performance appraisal, we assessed the associa-tion of appraisal process and system facets with contextual per-formance and perceived appraisal accuracy. Considering theresults for Hypothesis la. we found supervisor observation to bepositively associated with contextual performance. This is consis-tent with the notion that contextual performance is more likelywhen supervisors endeavor to learn about employees' work activ-ities in total rather than assessing only formal work requirementsor relying on performance information collected impersonally(e.g.. output totals). The appraisal process facets that pertainedmore to dynamics occurring within the performance appraisalsession did not display anticipated relationships with contextualperformance. Feedback/voice was not significantly related to. andplanning displayed an unexpected negative relationship with, con-textual performance. To the degree that discussing objectives andfuture work improvements with supervisors focused employees'work efforts on specific task behaviors, employees may have paidless attention to behaviors constituting contextual performance(see Wright. George. Famsworth. & McMahan. 1993).

Our test of Hypothesis lb found that the appraisal system facetsdid not explain variation in contextual perfonnance beyond thatcontributed by the process facets. The appraisal system facets haveless to do with the supervisor-employee relationship per se andtherefore are less likely to create conditions in which employeesfeel the need to reciprocate gestures of concem or goodwillthrough contextual performance. To the degree that employeesinterpret appraisal system facets as representing the organizationas a whole, their reactions may register more readily in terms oforganizational rather than interpersonal referents (Settoon. Ben-nett, & Liden, 1996).

With regard to our second criterion, perceived appraisal accu-racy, results for Hypothesis 2a indicated that the appraisal processfacets of supervisor observation and feedback/voice were bothpositively related to perceived appraisal accuracy. These facetssignify attempts by supervisors to gather pertinent informationeither directly through observation efforts or indirectly throughclarification and discussion within the appraisal session. The plan-ning facet was not significantly related to perceived accuracy,perhaps because it pertained more to future behavior, for which

RESEARCH REPORTS 639

Table 2Hierarchical Regression Results for Contextual Performanceand Perceived Appraisal Accuracy

Variable andR- statistic-

Entry order for

ControlNegative affectivityPerformance ratingReward linkageSupervisor fairnessSchool systetnSystem tenure

R- statistic\R-R-Adj. R^

Appraisal system facetSystem opennessSystem commitmentSystem complexityMultiple inputs

R^ statistic

R-Adj. R^

Appraisal process facetSupervisor observationPlanningFeedback/voice

/f- statistic^R-R'Adj. R-

Entry order for Hypotheses 1

After entry of control andprocess facets/?' statistic

J?-Adj. R^

After entry of control, process.and system facetsR^ statistic

R'Adj R^

Contextualperformance (/3)

Hypotheses la and

0.060.080.120.21*

-0.010.00

.1O'»lO**

.07

0.00-0.02

0.06

-on

.02

.12»*

.07

0 . 2 1 "-0.22**

0.09

.06**

.18**

.12

b and 2b—system

.I7»»

.17»»

.13

.01

.L8**,12

Perceived appraisalaccuracy (|3)

2a

-0.090.020.11

- 0 2 4 ' *-0.10

0.05

.06

.06

.03

0.I8*0.060.09

.08**

.14»'

.10

0.19*-0.06

0.26**

. 0 8 "

.22»»

.17

facets entered last

.18**

.18*»

.14

.04*

. 2 2 "

.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 Hypoth-eses lb and 2b was as follows: 1. controls. 2 process facets. 3. systemfacets. Beta weights shown are with all variables entered. AR~ = incre-mental R^\ R^ = cumulative R^ at that step in the regression model; Adj.R'' — cumulative adjusted /?''.* p < . 0 5 . • * p < . 0 1 .

accuracy assessments have less meaning. As predicted by Hypoth-esis 2b. the set of appraisal systetn facets explained incrementalvariation in perceived appraisal accuracy beyond that accountedfor by the appraisal process facets. This incremental effect is due

to system openness, which signals to employees that they have theopportunity to correct questionable ratings Moreover, employeesmay perceive that having this right would encourage supervisors tobe more accurate, as supervisors might have to defend their ratingsat a later date.

Regarding study limitations, generalizations to other organiza-tional contexts should be made with caution, as the study wasconducted in an educational setting. Another potential limitation isthat the appraisal facets and four of the control variables wereperceptual measures gathered from respondents Thus, analysesinvolving perceived appraisal accuracy could be affected by same-source method variance. However, method variance should simi-larly inflate relationships among all variables assessed in the samesurvey, and consequently the relative extent to which process andsystem facets were related to perceived appraisal accuracy shouldbe unaffected. A final concem is that if system facets are viewedas constants within a school system, variability in these facetsmight be restricted in comparison to that of the process facets.However, two factors mitigate this concem. First. Murphy andCleveland (1995) noted that individuals react to perceived ratherthan to objective aspects of the environment, and thus reactions toenvironmental factors may vary within an organization. Second,our system facets are more subjective in contrast to environmentalcharacteristics like organization size or number of managementlevels. Murphy and Cleveland suggested that when environmentalcues are more subjective, varied reactions to them are more likely.

In line with a due process perspective, we suggest that bolsteringrelational components of the appraisal process may have the larg-est impact on contextual performance. This idea emphasizes themotivational or developmental role of performance appraisal(Murphy & Cleveland. 1995). Whereas due process aspects of theappraisal system (e.g.. right of appeal) are likely to be perceived byemployees as more under the control of the organization thanindividual supervisors, the opposite is likely for appraisal pro-cesses, such as observing employee performance and conductmgreview sessions that emphasize fair and considerate interactions.

Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) have noted that the tradi-tional focus on task specific activities may have unduly limited theattention paid to contextual performance elements. A contributionof the present study is that it recognizes that performance appraisaldynamics can have repercussions on employee behavior beyondmatters 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 beable to coordinate activities, help each other with variable work-loads, and act in accordance with social norms, even though suchbehaviors may not be tied specifically to task proficiency. To thedegree that organizations acknowledge the importance of suchbehaviors and are able to shape them through the performanceappraisal function, greater opportunities for influencing overallorganizational 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 criteriondomain 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 theperformance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analyticreview of field investigations, Joumal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633,

Conway, J, M, (1999), Distinguishing contextual performance from taskperformance 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 fororganizational citizenship behavior: Leader faimess and task scopeversus satisfaction, Joumal of Management, 16, 705-721,

Folger, R,, & Konovsky, M, A, (1989), Effects of procedural and distrib-utive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Manage-ment Jourjwl, 32, 115-130,

Folger, R,, Konovsky, M, A,, & Cropanzano, R. (1992), Due processmetaphor for performance appraisal. Research in Organizationat Behav-ior. 14, 129-177,

George, i, M, (1991), State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosoeialbehaviors at work, Joumal of Apptied Psychotogy, 76, 299-307,

Giles, W, F., Findley, H, M., & Feild, H, S. (1997), Procedural faimess inperformance appraisal: Beyond the review session, Joumat of Businessand Psychology, 11, 493-506.

Giles, W, F., & Mossholder, K. W, (1990), Employee reactions to contex-tual and session components of perfonnance appraisal, Joumal of Ap-plied Psychology, 75, 371-377,

Greenberg, J. (1986), Determinants of perceived faimess of performanceevaluations, 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: Prentice-Hall.

Judge. T. A,, & Ferris, G, R, (1993), Social context of performanceevaluation decisions. Academy of Management Joumat, 38, 80-105.

Konovsky, M, A,, & Pugh, S. D. (1994), Citizenship behavior and socialexchange. Academy of Management Joumat, 37, 656-669,

Korsgaard, M. A,, & Roberson, L. (1995), Procedural justice in perfor-mance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instmmental voicein performance appraisal discussions, Joumat of Management, 21, 657-669,

Levy, P. E., & Williams, J, R. (1998), The role of perceived systemknowledge in predicting appraisal reactions, job satisfaction, and orga-nizational commitment. yo«/7«i/(>fOr^anizariona/B*/iavior, 19, 53-65,

Mayer, R, C , & Davis, J. H, (1999), The effect of the perfonnanceappraisal 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 andorganizational citizenship behaviors: Do faimess perceptions influenceemployee citizenship? Joumal of Applied Psychotogy, 76, 845-855,

Motowidlo, S, J., & Van Scotter, J, R, (1994), Evidence that task perfor-mance should be distinguished ftom contextual perfonnance. Joumal ofApplied Psychology, 79, 475-480,

Muiphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N, (1995), Understanding performance

appraisal: Social, organizationat, and goal-based perspectives. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage,

Nathan, B. R., Mohnnan, A, M,, & Milliman, J. (1991). Inteipenonalrelations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviewi on perfbr-mance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of ManagementJoumal, 34, 352-369.

Niehoff, B, P,, & Moorman, R, H, (1993), Justice as a mediator of therelationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizen-ship behavior. Academy of Management Joumal, 36, 527-556.

Organ, D, W, (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenshipbehavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 72, 43-72,

Organ, D, W, (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior: It's constructclean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.

Organ, D, W,, & Ryan, K, (1995). A meta-analytjc review of attitudinaland dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-sonnel 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 inleader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. LeadershipQuarterty, I, 107-142,

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N,, & Liden, R. C, (1996), Social exchange inorganizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member ex-change, and employee reciprocity, Joumal of Applied Psychology, SI,219-227.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A, (1999), Staffing work teams; Develop-ment and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings, Joumal ofManagement, 25, 207-228,

Taylor, M, S., Masterson, S, S,, Renard, M, K,, & Tracy, K, B, (1998),Managers' reactions to procedurally just performance management sys-tems. 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 inprocedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495—523,

Tziner, A,, Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J, N,, Beaudin, G., & Marchand, S,(1998), Impact of rater beliefs regarding performance appraisal and itsorganizational context on appraisal quality, Joumal of Business andPsychology, 12, 457-467,

Van Scotter, J, R,, & Motowidlo, S, J, (1996), Interpersonal facilitation andjob dedication as separate facets of contextual performance, Joumal ofApptied Psychotogy, 81, 525-531,

Watson, D,, Clark, L, A,, & TeUegen, A. (1988), Development and vali-dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANASscales, 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 andincentives on spontaneous helping, Joumat of AppUed Psychology, 7S,374-381,

Zuber, E, P., & Behson, S, J, (1998, April), The relationships betweenperformance appraisal session characteristics and ratee reactions: Ameta-analytic study. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society forIndustrial/Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Received December 8, 1998 ^Revision received September 8, 1999

Accepted September 8, 1999 •