Download - Organizational Outcomes of Appraisal Politics

Organizational Outcomesof the Employees^ Perceptions

of Performance Appraisal Politics:A Study on Executive MBA Students

in BangladeshKhair Jahan Sogra*, Abdullah Ibneyy Shahid** and Syed Najihullah***

Politics is assumed to be woven into every fabric of lives in Bangladesh. Politics is also indicated

to occur in the managers' use of power in ascertaining and distributing rewards for the

employees. However, politics in performance appraisal which is a critical process of reward

determination in the organizations remains under-researched. Against this backdrop, the

study investigates the relationship of emplcryees' Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Politics

(POPAP) with the employees' organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and turnover intention among the full time working (executive) MBA students

in Bangladesh. The results of this study on the 67 executive MBA students selected from the

four business schools in Bangladesh confirms that the employees' POPAP for punishment

motive significantly reduces their job satisfaction and organizatioruil commitment and encourages

them to quit the organization. Gontrarily, the empkryees' POPAP with a motivational motive,

increases job satisfaction and organizational commitment and reduces the turnover intention

of the employees. The study also opens up a broad avenue for research in the performance

appraisal politics in Bangladesh.

INTRODUCTION (Longenecker et al, 1987; Ferris et al,1996; Mani, 2002; and Poon, 2003).

Managers have strong political reasons tomanipulate employees'performance rating I" an earlier study done in thewhich influences the employees' organizational Malaysian context, Poon (2004) showedoutcomes such as the organizational that the managers do manipulate thecommitment and turnover intention performance appraisals of their

* Professor, Institute of Business Administration, University of Dhaka, Nilkhet, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh,E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

** Lecturer, Institue of Business Administration, University of Dhaka, Nilkhet, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh.

E-mail: [email protected] of MBA Program, Institute of Business Administration, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.E-mail: [email protected]

* * *

SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT

subordinates. Based on this manipulation,the subordinates develop their Perceptionsof Performance Appraisal Politics(POPAP) which ultimately results in theemployees' turnover intention. Poon(2004) also suggested that the differentoutcomes may emerge when the POPAPis influenced by the two contradictoryreasons such as the motivational motivevs. the punishment motive. The employees'POPAP for the motivational motive mayresult in the positive organizationaloutcomes (greater job satisfaction andlower turnover), whereas the employees'POPAP for the punishments motive maylead to negative organizational outcomes(such as reduced job satisfaction andhigher inclination to quit).

A literature survey reveals that thereis no study done in the Bangladeshicontext specifically addressing the issueof employees' motivation to increase orreduce the performance because ofPOPAP. Some studies have made onlycircuitous references to the employees'POPAP in Bangladesh. For instance,Jahangir (2003) investigated a relationshipbetween the managers' use of power,procedural justice, and employees' jobsatisfaction, and organizational commitmentin the Nationalized Commercial Banks(NCBs) in Bangladesh and observed thatthe managers of NCBs in Bangladesh donot use their reward power to appraise theemployees; they appraise the employeesexclusively on the basis of the jobperformance. In addition, the appraisalprocess is greatly influenced by themanagers' political motives such asthe managers' personal preferences,employees' involvement with the unions.

and the philosophy of top management.Similar observations have been made byHuq (1991) and Rahim and Magner'(1996). This study has replicated thestudies of Poon (2004) and Gillian andRichardson (2005) in the Bangladeshicontext. However, it includes organizationalcommitment as an added variable forexamining the relationship of theemployees' POPAP along with jobsatisfaction and turnover intentionvariables of earlier studies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

PERFORMANCE APPRAISALPOLITICS

Performance appraisal is a formalorganizational procedure. The managersuse this procedure to measure andevaluate their subordinates' performancewith formal rating instruments on anannual or semi-annual basis (Longeneckerand Ludwig, 1990). Tziner et al. (1996)observed that a majority of the researchon performance appraisal distortionsconcentrated on the non-deliberaterating distortions by the raters based onthe assumptions that if the raters had therequired skills, the exact rating instrumentsand the correct procedures, accurateratings would automatically follow. Forinstance, the study of Pulakos (1986) onthe performance rating focused on thetraining programs concluded that theraters would accurately rate if they hadthe proper training on rating performances.Longenecker et al. (1987) and Longeneckerand Gioia (1988) were the first to mentionthat managers can distort the performanceappraisals of their subordinatesintentionally. These researchers asserted

Volume 16 44 No. 3

ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCEAPPRAISAL POLITICS: A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH

that performance appraisals in theorganizations do not take place in avacuum, rather, the process is influencedby the organizational politics in generaland the political intentions of the ratersin particular. They drew on their researchto argue that managers often manipulateperformance ratings of their subordinatesin order to realize some of tbeir ownpersonal motives. They indicated thatsuch motives could be obtaining rewardsfor the subordinates or acquiring additionalresources of their own departments.Managers' pursuit of such personal goalsin the performance appraisal process hasbeen defined as the performance appraisalpolitics (Longenecker et al, 1987; andLongenecker and Gioia, 1988).

Longenecker and Ludwig (1990)broadened the study of Longenecker etal. (1987) and proposed a typology of therater motives and manipulative behaviorin the appraisal process to describe theperformance appraisal politics (Figure 1).The typology classifies the motives of theraters into two types—positive anddeviant and also asserts that themanagers either innate or deflate ratingsin order to accomplish these motives(Longenecker and Ludwig, 1990). Tzineret al (1996) renamed these motivations

the motivational motive andaspunishment motive, and observed themeasures that the managers adopt inrealizing these motives.

Figure 1: A Typology of Rater Motives and Manipulative Rating Behavior

INFLATE DEFLATE

POSITIVE

RATER'SMOTIVE

DEVIANT

• Keep the employee motivated

• Maximize the merit pay increase

• Avoid creating a permanent recordthat might damage the employees'career

• Reward good performance

• Assist an employee with a personalproblem

• Reward employees with high effortfor reward though performance islow.

• • Liking the subordinate personally

• Avoid spreading a bad repute of thedepartment

• Make themselves look good

• Avoid conflict/confrontation with asubordinate

• Promote a problem employee up andout

• Scare better performance out of anemployee to prevent eventualtermination

• Build a stronger case against anemployee who is destined to beterminated

• Punish an employee

• Encourage an employee to quit

• Minimize merit pay increase

• Comply with an organizational edictto keep ratings low

Source: Longenecker CO and Ludwig D (1990),p. 963

Volume 16 45 N,[o.3


RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPERFORMANCE APPRAISALPOLITICS AND JOBSATISFACTION

Eerris et ai. (1989) developed a model ofperceptions of organizational politics,which demonstrates that organizationalpolitics of any kind is associated with jobanxiety, job satisfaction, job involvement,and organizational withdrawal. Thesupervisors' fairness in performanceappraisal is a predictor of employees'satisfaction with supervision and this inturn, leads to their increased jobsatisfaction. Nye and Witt (1993)concluded that the employees' perceptionsabout the workplace politics such as anunfair appraisal are negatively correlatedwith job satisfaction.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPERFORMANCE APPRAISALPOLITICS ANDORGANIZATIONALCOMMITMENT

Mowday et al. (1982) observed that theemployees' perceptions of organizationalpolitics of any kind influence theemployees' organizational commitment.Parker et al. (1995) in their study on somegovernment employees posited that the

employees' perceptions of unfairness inreward decisions reduce the organizationalcommitment of the employees. Theysuggested that such lower commitmentcan lead to lower involvement with theirwork, and increase the turnover intention.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPERFORMANCE APPRAISALPOLITICS AND TURNOVERINTENTION

Eerris et al. (1999) used the model of Eerriset ai. (1989) to study the outcomes ofperceptions of the workplace politics. Theydemonstrated that the employees'perceptions of supervisors' manipulativebehavior in the appraisal process ispositively correlated with the employees'turnover intention. The employees'turnover intentions are positively relatedto their perceptions of the workplacepolitics, specifically, if they perceive thatthe managers are manipulating theperformance appraisal process to realizetheir own workplace political agenda(Randall et al, 1999; and Poon, 2004).

RESEARCH MODEL ANDHYPOTHESIS

The conceptual framework of the researchto establish the relationship among thestudied variables is presented in Eigure 2.

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of the Study

Employees' Perceptions ofPerformance Appraisal

Politics (EPOPAP)

—

—

-

EPOPAP forMotivational Motive

EPOPAP forPunishment Motive

tEmployees' Job Satisfaction

Employees' OrganizationalCommitment

Employees' Turnover Intention

+Volume 16 46 No. 3

ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCEAPPRAISAL POLITICS; A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH

Erom this framework, followinghypotheses have been developed for thestudy:

H,: Employees' POPAP for the

motivational motive significantly

increases the employees' job

satisfaction.

H^: Employees' POPAP for the

punishment motive significantly

reduces employees' job satisfaction.

H y Employees' POPAP for the

motivational motive makes the

employees more committed

towards the organization.

H^: Employees' commitment towards

the organization is significantly

reduced by their POPAP for the

punishment motive.

Hy Employees' POPAP for the

motivational motive significantly

reduces the employees' turnover

intention.

Hg.- Empio:yee5' POPAP for the

punishment motive significantly

increases their turnover intention.

Hy. Employees' POPAP and its

outcome differs significantly based

on gender.

Hg.- Employees'' POPAP and its


on age,' •

H,; Employees' POPAP and its


on the tjipe of employees.

H,^: Employees' POPAP and its


on experience (in years).

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH APPROACH

A correlational research design has beenadopted for the study. To investigate theresearch questions, data were collectedfrom the full time working (executive)MBA students of four business schools inthe country, namely, the Institute ofBusiness Administration (Executive MBAProgram) of the University of Dhaka; theFaculty of Business Studies (EveningMBA Program) of the University ofDhaka; the School of Business (MBAProgram) of the North South University;and the School of Business (MBA Program)of the Independent University, Bangladesh.A total of 150 questionnaires were sent tothe four business schools out of which 70questionnaires were returned. Threequestionnaires were omitted for missingdata. This led to a response rate of 33.5%.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OFVARIABLES

Employees' Perceptions of Performance

Appraisal Politics (POPAP)

This variable was measured by using a14-item scale adopted from theQuestionnaire of Political Oonsiderationsin Performance Appraisal (QPOPA)developed by Tziner et al. (1996) and Poon(2004). Eight items were used formeasuring the EPOPAP for themotivational motive and the rest six itemswere for measuring the EPOPAP for thepunishment motive. The responses toeach item were recorded on a 6-poiñtLikert type scale ranging from ' 1 ' (veryatypical) to '6' (very typical).

Volume 16 47 No. 3


Employées' Joh Satisfaction

This variable was measured by using tbeMinnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire(MSQ) developed by Weiss et al (1967).Tbe original instrument consists of 20items. However, two items were deletedduring a pilot testing of tbe questionnairedue to tbeir ambiguity and repetitivenature reported by tbe respondents.Hence, tbe finally adapted MSQconsisted of 18 items. Responses to eacbitem were recorded on a 5-point Likerttype scale ranging from ' 1 ' (verydissatisfied) to '5' (very satisfied).

Employees' Organizatioruxl Commitment

Tbe variable was measured by a 7-itemsbort form of tbe OrganizationalCommitment Questionnaire (OCQ)developed by Mowday et al (1979). Eacbitem is cast on a 5-point Likert scaleranging from '1 ' (strongly disagree) to '5'(strongly agree).

Employees' Turnover Intention

Tbe variable was measured by using tbreeitems. Tbe items were combined andadopted tbrougb. a pilot testing from tbescales of Carmeli (2003) and Cbiu andFrancesco (2003). Tbe originalquestionnaires were based on tbe turnoverintention process proposed by Mobleyet al (1978). Tbe responses to all tbe tbreeitems were recorded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ' 1 ' (stronglydisagree) to '5' (strongly agree).

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Tbe study is a correlational study. Hence,correlation matrices bave been used toidentify wbetber tbe relationsbip existsbetween tbe measured variables or not.In addition, regression analysis bas beencarried out to find out tbe strengtb of

association between tbe studied variables.Besides, a demograpbic profile of tberespondents bas also been provided. SPSS12.0 bas been utilized as a data analysistool.

RESUTLS ANDINTERPREATION

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THERESPONDENTS

Of tbe 67 respondents, 88.1% were maleand 11.9% were female. Tbe classificationof age sbows tbe sample is dominated byyounger managers (Table 1).

Table 1: Age Distribution of theRespondents

Age (Years)

20 to less than 30

30 to less than 40

40 to less than 50

Total

Frequency

52

12

3

67

Percent

77.6

17.9

4.5

100.0

77.6% of tbe respondents' age rangefrom 20 to less tban 30. On tbe otber band,tbe age of tbe rest of tbe respondents rangesfrom 30 to less tban 50.

Tbe work experience of tbe samplerespondents is up to 20 years (Table 2).In fact, only one respondent bas 20.5 yearsof experience. Most of tbe respondents (asbigb as 58.2% bave experience of two orless tban two years) are new comers intbeir respective jobs.

Tahle 2: Length of Service

Experience(Years)

Up to 2

2to44to66 to 8Total

Frequency

39

12

10

6

67

Percent

58.2

17.9

14.9

9.0

100.0

Volume 16 48 No. 3


FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONOF DESCRIPTIVE ANDCORRELATION ANALYSIS

Descriptive and correlations statisticsamong the studied variables are listed inTables 3 and 4. The reliability coefficient(a), mean, and standard deviation (SD)of all the constructs in the current studyare displayed in Table 3. The coefficienta for the different constructs werecomputed using the reliability procedurein SPSS. Nunnally (1978) suggested thatfor early stages of any research, a reliabilityof 0.50 to 0.60 is sufficient and thereliabilities of all the constructs in thisstudy were found to be within anacceptable range.

The mean score for job satisfaction is3.7470 (SD = 0.61438), which means thatthe employees have moderately high levelof job satisfaction. The seemingly lowerstandard deviation supports theemployees' accord on this issue. The meanscore for the organizational commitmentis 3.6908 (SD = 0.81634) indicating thatthe employees are almost committed totheir organizations; however, the SD ofaround 82% shows such attitude of theemployees vary within the sample. Themean value for turnover intentions of the

employees is 2.8010 (SD = 1.24595).It implies that the intention of theemployees to switch their respectiveorganizations is low; however, the responsevaries to a larger extent, resulting in ahigher level of the SD. Regarding theperception of the fairness of performanceappraisal, mean score for the motivationalmotive is 3.6028 (SD = 0.91302) and forthe punishment motive is 3.5445 (SD =1.01857). Although the mean valuessuggest the presence of POPAP in termsof both the motivational motive andpunishment motive, higher standarddeviations imply that the responses are nothomogenous in nature.

Correlation analysis was conducted onall the variables to explore the relationshipamong those. The bivariants correlationprocedure was subject to a two tailedstatistical significance at two differentlevels: highly significant ip < 0.01) andsignificant {p < 0.05). The result ofcorrelation analysis (Table 4) provides jobsatisfaction (r = -0.315, p < 0.01),organizational commitment (r = -0.257,p < 0.05), and turnover intention (r =0.376 p < 0.01) are statistically andsignificantly correlated with theindependent variable, punishment motive.

Table 3: Number of Items, Mean, Standard Deviation, and StandardizedCronbach Alpha of Each Variable

Variables

Job Satisfaction (JS)

Organizational Commitment (OC)

Turnover Intention (TI)

EPOPAP for Motivational Motive

EPOPAP for Punishment Motive

Number ofItems

18

7386

Mean

3.7470

3.6908

2.8010

3.6028

3.5445

SD

0.61438

0.81634

1.24595

0.91302

1.01857

a

0.908

0.871

0.949

0.857

0.821Note: N = 67.

Volume 16 49 No. 3


Table 4: Correlation Matrix for Employees' POPAP (for Motivational Motiveand Punishment Motive) with Employees' Job Satisfaction, Organizational

Commitment and Turnover Intention

Variables

Job Satisfaction

Organizational Commitment

Turnover Intention

EPOPAP for MotivationalMotive

EPOPAP for PunishmentMotive

JS

-

OC

0.762**

-

TI

-0.631**

-0.634**

-

EPOPAP forMotivational

Motive

0.132

0.345**

-0.064

-

EPOPAP forPunishment

Motive

-0.315**

-0.257*

0.376**

0.401**

-

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; JS: Job Satisfaction; OC: Organizational Commitment and Tl: Turnover Intention

Contrarily, only the organizationalcommitment (r = 0.345, p < 0.01) is foundto be significantly and positively correlatedwith the other independent variable, i.e.,the motivational motive. Thus, it can beinferred that the strength of associationamong all the variables is weak.

FINDINGS ANDINTERPRETATIONS OF STFPWISEREGRESSION AN ALYSIS

The stepwise regression analysis issummarized in the Tables 5, 6 and 7. Theregression results in Table 5 indicate that

the punishment motive is negativelyrelated with the job satisfaction. Besides,it alone explains 9.9% variation inemployees' job satisfaction at p < 0.01.On the other hand, positive relationshipwith the motivational motive, explains 8%variability in the employees' jobsatisfaction at a level of p < 0.05.

The regression analysis in Table 6indicates that the employees' POPAP forthe motivational motive has a significantand positive effect on the employees'commitments toward the organizations.As opposed, the perceptions of

Table 5: Results of Stepwise Regression with Job Satisfaction asDependent Variable

Variables

Step OneEPOPAP for Punishment Motive

Step TwoEPOPAP for Punishment Motive


B

--0.190

-

-0.265

0.207

SE B

-

0.071

-

0.075

0.083

ß-

-0.315**

-

-0.439**

0.308*

0.099

-0.179

-

-

AR2

-

-

-

-

0.08

Note: N = 67; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; B = Coefficient (unstandardized partial regressioncoefficient) ; SE B = Standard error (sigma) of B; ß = co efficient beta (standardized partial regression coefficient).R2 = partial and marginal, R squared; AR^= Cbange in marginal R squared values of all predictors.

Volume 16 No. 3


Table 6: Results of Stepwise Regression with Organizational Commitmentas Dependent Variable . .

Steps of Regression

Step One


Step Two



B

-

0.309

, • - , - , •

0.478

-0.378

SÉB

-

0.104

-

0.102

0.091

ß-

0.345**

-

0.535***

-0.472***

R2

0.119

-

0.306

-

-

AR2

-

• -

-

-

0.187Note: N = 67; •?.< 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***{)< 0.001.

punishment motive appraises theemployees significantly and negativelyinfluences their commitment. The R of11.9% for the motivational motive atp < 0.01, and R^ of 18.7% for thepunishment motive at a level ofp < 0.001implies that the employees reactednegatively when they perceived that themanagers are using perception appraisalas a punishment mechanism andconsequently their commitment towardthe organizations is reduced.

Table 7 illustrates the impact of POPAPon the turnover intention of theemployees. The results show that théemployees tend to quit their job whenthey apprehend any kind of reprimandingaittitude of their supervisors exhibitedthrough the performance appraisal process.

Equally, the employees' POPAP in termsof the motivational motive restrains theirturnover intention. However, regressionvalue of 14.1% at p < 0.01 for thepunishment motive, and 5.5% at f> < 0.05for the motivational motive imply that theemployees are sensitive tQ negativeattitudes of the managers regarding theperformance appraisal, rather thari anypositive political stance thereof.

FINDINGS ANDINTERPRETATIONS OF SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

In order to facilitate the discussion, subgroup analysis was conducted'based onthe gender, age, type of employees, andexperience (in years).

At first, t-test was conducted to seewhether employees' POPAP for motivational

Table 7: Results of Step-Wise Regression with Turnover Intentionas Dependent Variable

Steps of Regression

Step One


Step Two



B

-

0.460

-

0.585

-0.349

SE B

-

0.141

-

0.150

0.167

ß-

0.376**

-

0.479***

-0.256*

R2

0.141 .

-

0.196

-

-

AR2

• -

-

- •

0.055

Note: N = 67; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Volume 16 5 1 N,'o.3


motive, punishment motive, satisfaction andcommitment level and turnover intentiondiffers hased on their gender. No significantdifference was observed between male andfemale in this regard (Table 8).

Tben, ANOVA was employed to seewhether employees' of different age opinedifferently in regard to POPAP formotivational motive, punishment motive,satisfaction and commitment level, and

Table 8: Summary of

Factors

JobSatisfaction

Organizational

Commitment

Turnover

Intention

EPOPAP for

MotivationalMotive

EPOPAP for

PunishmentMotive

Gender

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

M

3.7491

3.7312

3.6877

3.7143

2.7514

3.1667

3.5567

3.9427

3.5195

3.7292

the Findings from t-test

SD

0.6303

0.5164

0.8144

0.8872

1.2573

1.1684

0.9345

0.6886

1.0577

0.6839

t-test Findings

No significant difference exists.


No significant difference exists



Table 9: Summary of the findings from

Factors

Job Satisfaction

OrganizationalCommitment

Turnover Intention

EPOPAP forMotivationalMotive

EPOPAP forPunishmentMotive

Job Satisfaction

Age20-30304040-50

20-3030-40 ,40-50

20-3030-4040-50

20-3030-4040-50

20-3030-40

40-50

M

3.71773.84313.8704

3.64013.71434.4762

2.83332.83332.1111

3.62283.38544.1250

3.57343.2361

4.2778

SD

0.62620.61830.5041

0.78680.96510.2974

1.21451.29101.9245

0.86711.14370.6614

0.93841.3266

0.8389

ANOVA—Age Factors

Findings






Volume 16 52 No. 3


turnover intention. However, no employees when they are classified basedsignificant difference was found thereof on their job positions. The result of(Table 9). ANOVA in Table 10 extracts the findings.

Nevertheless, significant differences in Further, significant differences inopinion exist in several cases among the opinion are also found among the

Tahle 10: Summary of the Findings from ANOVA—Type of Employees

Factors

Job Satisfaction

Organizational

Commitment

Turnover

Intention

EPOPAP forMotivationalMotive

EPOPAP for

Punishment

Motive

Employee Type

Manager of manager

Manager of a unit

Supervisor

Executive

Contractual

Manager of manager

Manager of a unit

Supervisor

Executive

Contractual

Manager of manager

Manager of a unit

Supervisor

Executive

Contractual

Manager of managerManager of a unitSupervisorExecutive

Contractual

Manager of manager

Manager of a unit

Supervisor

Executive

Contractual

M

4.0533

4.0179

3.6474

3.4734

4,0000

4.2000

4.0000

3,5536

3.3540

3,7619

2.0000

2.4889

2.6667

3,4348

2,8889

4,24823,78333,12873.5096

3.7917

3.7167

3.1222

3.4406

3,7942

3,7222

SD

0,4625

0,3699

0.5405

0,7472

0,3849

0,5396

0.6872

0.8129

0.87840.6751

1,1967

1,1943

1,2413

1,1301

0.6939

0,5901'0,82981,03960,8376

1.0104

0,9265

1,0699

0,9874

0,99541,3472

Findings

Significant difference inopinion of Executive exists withmanager of a unit (p < 0,01)and Manager of managers(p<0,05).

Executives' opinion differssignificantly from manager of aunit (f) < 0,05) and Manager ofmanagers (t> < 0,01), Significantdifference also exists betweenManager of managers andSupervisor (p < 0,05), • :

Executives' opinion differs,significantly from Manager ofmanagers (f> < 0,01), managerof a unit (p < 0,05) ahdSupervisor, (p < 0,05),

Significant difference in opinionof' Supervisor exists withManager of managers(p < 0,01) and manager of aunit (p < 0,05), In Addition,Executives' opinion differssignificantly with Manager ofmanagers (p < 0,05),

No significant difference existsbetween groups. .

Volume 16 53 No, 3


Table 11: Summary of the Findings from ANOVA—^Job Experience

Factors

Job Satisfaction

Organizational.

Commitment

Turnover

Intention

EPOPAP for

Motivational

Motive

EPOPAP for

Punishment

Motive

Years

0-2 •

2-4

4-66 and above

0-2

2-44-6

6 and above

0-2

2-4

4-66 and above

0-2

lA '4-6

6 and above

0-2

2-44-66 and above

M

3.6852

3.6146

4.1.167

3.7974

3.6007

3.4405

4.0143

4.2381

2.9744

2.7500

2.3000

2.6111

3.6537

3.2202

3.4125

4.3542

3.6940

3.2431

3.4667

3.3056

SD

0.6691 .

0.5364

0.5215

0.3299

0.8029

0.9736

0.7013

0.3798

1.2713

1.2563

1.1380

1.2722

0.8325

1.1117

0.9318

0.5778

0.9970

1.0633

1.1675

0.8526

Findings

Significant difference in opinionbetween employees with 0-2 years and4-6 years of experience exists at a levelof p < 0.05., .

Opinion of employees with 2r4 yearsand 6 & above differs significantly at alevel of {)< 0.05.

No significant difference existsbetween groups.

Opinion of employees with experienceof 6 &. above years differs significantlywith the employees having 2-4 and 4-6years of experience.

No significant difference existsbetween groups.

employees having different level ofexperience. Table 11 summarizes thefindings.

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

Three terms should get more focus in thisdiscussion: performance, appraisal, andpolitics. Certainly the term performance,has to be classified. Here the differencebetween traditional and recent yiew arealso seem. Corporate profit makingactivity, if highly regarded as goodperformance, then value creation activitycertainly having long run view, gets'shadowed. Such a misleading perceptionmight hamper what we call appraisal. Thismisled appraisal might be seen negativelyresulting in the perception of politics.

Then POPAP appears. Certainlyperformance is a relative issue withouthaving a predetermined benchmark allthe time. This creates confusion overwhat to achieve, i.e., what conforms togood performance. An employeeprogressing at 10% rate certainly expectss/he is doing well. Whereas, another onemight do a threefold progress. Now, thequestion is how come the first employeewould know that s/he has to excel thespeed of progression. This is what has beenfound through the sub-group analysis.Employees' in managerial role have a quiteopposite view from the executives andothers in most of the cases, especially inEPOPAP for motivational motive.Quarterly/semi-annual review of

Volume 16 54 No. 3


performance and communication thereofmight prove to be fruitful in resolving suchsituation failing which the same reoccurs.

The sample is dominated hy youngemployees, who just started their career.Apparently it seems there is a problem ofperson-job match as they are largelydissatisfied with tbeir job. However, acloser look into tbé issue brings moreinteresting scenario in front. Tbecorporate Bangladesb is at a cross road.More people witb background of BBA andMBA are coming out as never before.They are equipped with newer techniquesand ideas and motivation to do sometbingexceptional so tbat tbey can acbieve anexceptional career growtb. "Wben tbeir(executives witb training in businessadministration) value creation aptitudefaces obstacles from tbe traditionalmanagement appróacb (management bystandardizations) of tbe senior managers(wbo mostly did not receive degrees inbusiness administration sucb as BBA andMBA), conflicts of interests between tbemanagers and employees may ensue."Anotber important aspect in tbis contextis 'expectation'. Do tbey expect more?Is tbeir expectation irrational? Tbe answerto sucb query can Kelp in solving tbeproblem. Tbe findings of tbe study sbouldnot be taken as conclusive not becausetbe sample size is smaller, but since itcreates a new avenue of researcb: to wbatextent tbe expectation of new employees,be it work environment, salary, benefits,performance appraisal or even tbe workitself, bampers tbe sense of job satisfaction'in tbem. Since performance appraisal toa certain extent is a subjective matter.

tbere is a scope of manipulation,misjudgment, and/or misinterpretation.Face to face discussion during appraisalmigbt reduce sucb gaps arising frommisinterpretation.

Mainly, two parties are being studiedin this research: the one who perceivesand the one who is being perceived. Tberelationsbip between tbese two ends upeitber with sweet or bad memories. At tbeend of the day, this is what business is:'relationsbip'. Tbe relationsbip to sustainneeds communication. And it bas to beregular. Tbe impact of tbese two variables,namely relationsbip between supervisorsand supervisee and communicationtbereof, in tbis model migbt extractinsigbtful findings and tbereby clarify tbeexisting conflicts. Otherwise, tbe person.being perceived will be tbe scapegoat alltbe time. More importantly, the problemwill persist.

CONCLUSION

In sbort, tbe current study' confirms alltbe bypotbeses and explains tbat tbeemployees' POPAP for the punisbmentmotive significantly reduces tbeemployees' job satisfaction andorganizational commitment,' andencourages tbem to quit tbeorganizations. Conversely, tbe employees'POPAP for the motivational motive,increases the job satisfaction andorganizational commitment, and reducestbe turnover intention of tbe employees.Tbese findings signify tbat tbe employeesfavor tbose kinds of performanceappraisal politics tbat benefit tbem.

Volume 16 55 No. 3


The findings of this study can help themanagers and the strategic decisionmakers of the organizations to makeinformed decisions. The supervisors needto avoid abusing their power formanipulating the employees' performanceappraisal in order to achieve their ownpolitical gains. Because, this policy createsdiscords among the employees in theorganizations and leads to intractableconflicts among the subordinates and thesupervisors, which impediments thegoals achievements of the organizationsin the long run. Notably, the aggrievedemployees in retaliation try to sabotagethe organizational work environment. Themanagement needs to introduce andencourage the open communicationsystem to ensure free transmission of ideas.This will satisfy the intrinsic requirementsof the employees and the supervisors willbe dissuaded from abusing theiradministrative power. In addition, the

appraisal system needs to be monitoredon a regular basis, and the employeesshould be encouraged to provide feedbackon the system.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTUREDIRECTIONThe current study is not a conclusive one. It

has considered only a few work outcomes of

the employees' perceptions of organizational

politics. Besides, its sample size is of relatively

young population; any future study on the

professional managers with longer work

experiences may lead to more acceptable

findings. Future studies should address these

limitations and consider the other variables

sucb as the employees' anxiety, stress, loyalty,

etc., with the moderating effect of

demographic variables like age, gender, type

of employment (part time, contractual, and

full time). Tbe mediating affect of tbe job

satisfaction also needs to be included in the

future studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Baruch Y (1998), "The Rise and Fall

of Organizational Commitment",Human Systems Management, Vol. 17,No. 2, pp. 135-143.

2. Benkhoff B (1997), "IgnoringCommitment is Costly: NewApproaches Establish the MissingLink Between Commitmerit andPerformance", Human Relations,Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 701-726.

3. Blau G J and Boal K R (1987),"Conceptualizing How Job Involvementand Organizational Commitment Affect •Turnover and Absenteeism", Academyof Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 2,pp. 288-300.

4. Bluedorn AC (1979), "Structure,Environment and Satisfaction:Toward a Causal Model of Turnoverfrom Military Organization", Journalof Military and Political Psychology,Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 181-207.

5. Brunetto Y and Farr-Wbarton R(2003), "Tbe Commitment andSatisfaction of Lower-Ranked PoliceOfficers: Lessons for Management",An International Journal of PoliceStrategies & Management, Vol. 26,No. 1, pp. 43-63.

6. Camp S D(1993), "Assessing theEeffects of OrganizationalCommitment and Job Satisfaction onTurnover: An Event History

Volume 16 56 No. 3


Approach", The Prisonjoumal, Vol. 74,No. 3, pp. 279-305.

7. Carmeli A (2003), "The RelationshipBetween Emotional Intelligence andWork Attitudes, Behavior andOutcomes: An Examination AmongSenior Managers. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 8,pp. 788-813.

8. Chen X C and Francesco A M (2000),"Employee Demography,Organizational Commitment, andTurnover Intentions in China: DoCultural Differences Matter?", HumanRelations, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 869-887.

9. Chiu R K and Francesco A M (2003),"Dispositional Traits and TurnoverIntention: Examining the MediatingRole of Joh Satisfaction and AffectiveCommitment", International Journal ofManpower, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 284-298.

10. Cook J and Wall T (1980), "NewWork Attitude Measures of Trust,Organizational Commitment andPersonal Needs Non-Fulfillment",Journal of Occupational Psychology,Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.

11. Dunham R B and Herman J B (1975),"Development of a Female Faces scalefor Measuring Joh Satisfaction",Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60,pp. 629-631.

12. Elangovan A R (2001), "CausalOrdering of Stress, Commitment, andIntention to Quit: A StructuralEquation Analysis", Leadership &Organizational Development Journal,Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 159-165.

13. Ferres N, Connell J and TravaglioneA (2004), "Co-Worker Trust as aSocial Catalyst for ConstructiveEmployee Attitudes", Journal of

Managerial Psychobgy, Vol. 19, No. 6,pp. 608-622.

14. Ferris G R, Frink D D, Galang M Cet al. (1996), "Perceptions ofOrganizational Politics: Predictors,Stress-Related Implications, andOutcomes", Hurruin Relatioru, Vol. 49,No. 2, pp. 233-266.

15. Ferris G R, Harrel-Cook G andDulehohn J H (1999), "PoliticalBehaviors as Moderators of thePerceptions of Organizational Politics-Work Outcomes Relationships",Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 20, No. 7, p. 1093.

16. Ferris G R and Kacmar K M (1992),"Perceptions of OrganizationalPolitics", Journal of Management,Vol. 18, March, pp. 93-116.

17. Ferris G R, Russ G S and Fandt P M(1989), "Politics in Organization", inGiacalone R A and Rosnfield P (Eds.)Impression Management in theOrganization, pp. 143-170, LawrenceErlhaum, New Jersey.

18. Firth L, Mellor D J, Moore K A andClaude L (2004), "How CanManagers Reduce Employee Intentionto Quit?", Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 170-187.

19. Gillian G and Richardson G (2005),"Perceptions of Tax Fairness and TaxCompliance in Australia and HongKong-A Preliminary Study", Journal ofFinancial Crime, Vol. 12, No. 4>pp. 331-342.

20. Herzherg F (1968), "One More Time:How do you Motivate Employees?",Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46,pp. 53-62.

21. Huq M (1991), "Leadership PowerBases in the Nationalized Commercial

Volume 16 57 N,lo.3


Banks in Bangladesh", UnpublishedMasters Thesis, University of Dhaka,Dhaka.

22. Iveron R D and Roy P (1994),"A Causal Model of BehavioralCommitment: Evidence from a Studyof Australian Blue-Collar Employees",Journal of Management, Vol. 40,No. 2, pp. 45-60.

23. Jahangir N (2003), Perceptions ofPower: A Cognitive Perspective ofNationalized Gorrimercial Banks ofBangladesh, Center for Social Studies,Dhaka.

24. Kacmar K M, Bozeman D P, CarlsonD S and Anthony W P(1999), "AnExamination of the Perceptions ofOrganizational Politics Model:Replication and Extension", HumanRelations, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 383-417.

25. Larson E W and Fukami C V(1984),"Relationships Between WorkerBehavior and Commitment to theOrganization and Union", Academy ofManagement Proceeding, pp. 222-226.

26 Lee T W and MitcheU T R (1991), "TheUnfolding Effects of OrganizationalCommitment and Anticipated JobSatisfaction on Voluntary EmployeeTurnover", Motivation and Eniotion,Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 99-121.

27. Locke E A (1976), "The Nature andCauses of Job Satisfaction", in DunnetteM D (Ed.), Handbook of lr\dustrial andOrganizaüonalPsychohgy, pp. 1297-1349,Rand McNally, Chicago.

28. Lofquist L H and Dawis R V (1969),Adjustment to Work, Appleton-Century-Crofits, New York.

29. Longenecker C O and Gioia D A(1988), "Neglected at the Top:Executives Talk About Executive

Appraisals", Sloan ManagementReview,Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 41-47.

30. Longenecker C O and Ludwig D(1990), "Ethical Dilemmas inPerformance Appraisal Revisited",Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9,No. 12, pp. 961-969.

31. Longenecker C O, Sims H P Qr.) andGioia D A (1987), "Behind the Mask:The Politics of Employee Appraisal",The Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 183-193.

32. Lum L, Kervin J, Clark K, Reid F andSirola W (1998), "Explaining NursingTurnover Intent: Job Satisfaction, PaySatisfaction, or OrganizationalCommitment?", Joumai ofOrganizadandBehavior, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 305-320.

33. MacKenzie S B,- Podsakoff P M andAhearne M (1998), "Some PossibleAntecedents and Consequences ofIn-Role and Extra-Role SalespersonPerformance", Journal of Marketing,Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 87-98.

34. Mani B G (2002), "PerformanceAppraisal Systems, Productivity, andMotivation: A Case Study", PublicPersonnel Management, Vol. 31, No. 2,pp. 141-159.

35. Mano-Negrin R (1998), "Occupati-onal Determinants of Work Attitudesand Organizational Attachment",Health Manpower Management,Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 153-160.

36. Marsh R M and Mannari H (1977),"Organizational Commitment andTurnover: A Prediction Study",Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 22, No.' 1, pp. 57-75.

37. Mathieu J E and Zajac D M (1990),"A Review and Meta-Analysis of theAntecedents, Correlates, and

Volume 16 58 No. 3


Consequences of OrganizationalCommitment", Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 108, No. 2, pp. 171-194.

38. Meyer J P and Allen N J (1984),"Testing the 'Side-bet Theory' ofOrganizational Commitment: SomeMethodological Considerations",Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69,pp. 372-378.

39. Meyer J P and Allen N J (1991), "AThree-Component Conceptp-ualizationof Organizational Commitment", HumanResource Management Review, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 61-89.

40. Mitchel J O (1981), "The Effect ofIntentions, Tenure, Personal andOrganizational Variables onManagerial Turnover", Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 24,No. 4, pp. 742-751.

41. Mobley W H (1977), "IntermediateLinkages in the Relationship BetweenJob Satisfaction and EmployeeTurnover", journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 237-240.

42. Mobley W H, Griffeth R W, Hand HH and Meglino B M (1979), "Reviewand Conceptual Analysis of theEmployee Turnover Process",Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86,No. 3, pp. 493-522.

43. Mobley. W H, Horner S O andHollingsworth A T (1978), "AnEvaluation of Precursors of HospitalEmployee Turnover", Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 4,pp. 408-414.

44. Moore J E and Burke L A (2002),"How to Turn Around 'TurnoverCulture' in IT", Communications of theACM, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 73-78.

45. Mowday R T, Porter L W and Steers

R M (1979), "Measurement ofOrganizational Commitment", Journalof Vocational Behavior, Vol. 25, No. 4,pp. 224-247.

46. Mowday R T, Porter L W and Steers,R M (1982), Employee-OrganizationLinkages: The Psychology ofCommitment, Absenteeism, andTurnover, Academic Press, New York.

47. Muchinsky P M (1977), "EmployeeAbsenteeism: A Review of theLiterature", Journal of VocationalBehavior, Vol. 10, pp. 316-340.

48. Murphy K R and Cleveland J N(1991), Performance Appraisal: AnOrganizational Perspective, AUyn andBacon, Boston.

49. Naumann E, Widmier S M andJackson D W (2000), "ExaminingRelationship Between Work Attitudesand Propensity to Leave AmongExpatriate Salespeople", The Journal ofPersonal Selling & Sales Management,Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 227-241.

50. Nunnally J C (1978), Introduction toPsychological Measurement, McGrawHill, New York.

51. Oshagbemi T (1996), "Job Satisfactionof UK Academics", EducationalManagement and Administration,Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 389-400.

52. Oshagbemi T (1999), "Overall JobSatisfaction: How Good are SingleVersus Multiple-Item Measures?",Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 388-403.

53. Parker C i Dipboye R L and Jackson,S L (1995), "Perceptions of Organizat-

• ional Politics: An Investigation ofAntecedents and Consequences",Journal of Management, Vol. 21,pp. 891-912.

Volume 16 59 No. 3

SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANACEMENT

54. Poon J M L (2003), "SituationalAntecedents and Outcomes ofOrganizational Politics Perceptions",Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 18, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 138455.

55. Poon J M L (2004), "Effects ofPerformance Appraisal Politics on JobSatisfaction and Turnover Intention",Personnel Review, Vol. 33, No. 3,pp.322-334.

56. Pulakos E D (1986), "Tbe Develop-ment of Training Programs to IncreaseAccuracy in Different Rating Tasks",Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 38, No. 1,pp. 76-91.

57. Rabim M A and Magner N R (1996),"Confirmatory Factor Analysis of tbeBases of Leader Power: First-OrderFactor Model and Its InvarianceAcross Groups", MuMvariate BehavioralResearch, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 495-516.

58. Randall M L, Cropanzano R,Borman C A and Birjuin A (1999),"Organizational Politics andOrganizational Support as Predictorsof Work Attitudes, Job Performance,and Organizational CitizensbipBebavior", Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 20, pp. 159-174.

59. Reicbers A E (1986), "Conflict andOrganizational Commitment", Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 3,pp. 508-514.

60. Sbore L M and Martin H J (1989),"Job Satisfaction and OrganizationalCommitment in Relation to WorkPerformance and Turnover Intentions",Human Relations, Vol. 42, No. 7,pp. 625-638.

61. Smitb P C, Kendall C M and Hulin C L(1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction

in Work and Retirement, RandMcNally, Cbicago.

62. Steers R M (1977), "Antecedents andOutcomes of OrganizationalCommitment", Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 46-56.

63. Suliman A M and lies P A (2000),"Tbe Multi-Dimensional Nature oíOrganizational Commitment in aNon-Western Context", Journal ofManagement Development, Vol. 19,No. 1, pp. 71-82.

64. Tziner A, Latbam G P, Price B S andHaccoun R (1996), "Developmentand Validation of a Questionnaire forMeasuring Perceived PoliticalConsiderations in PerformanceAppraisal", Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 179-190.

65. Vroom V (1964), Work and Motivation,Jobn Wiley, New York.

66. Wong Y, Ngo H and Wong C (2002),"Affective Organizational Commitmentof Workers in Cbinese Joint Ventures",Jourrud of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17,No. 7, pp. 580-598.

67. Weisberg J (1994), "MeasuringWorkers' Burnout and Intention toLeave", International Journal ofManpower, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 4-14.

68. Weiss D J, Dawis R V, England G Wand Lofquist L H (1967), Manual forthe Minnesota Satisfaction QuestionnaireUniversity of Minnesota, MN.

69. Williams L J and Hazer J T (1986),"Antecedents and Consequences ofSatisfaction and Commitment inTurnover Models: A ReanalysisUsing Latent Variable StructuralEquation Metbods", Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 2,pp. 219-231.

Volume 16 60 No. 3

Copyright of South Asian Journal of Management is the property of South Asian Journal of Management and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Download - Organizational Outcomes of Appraisal Politics

Top Related