Organizational Outcomes of Appraisal Politics

Organizational Outcomes of 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 Managers have strong political reasons to manipulate employees'performance rating which influences the employees' organizational outcomes such as the organizational commitment and turnover intention * (Longenecker et al, 1987; Ferris et al, 1996; Mani, 2002; and Poon, 2003). I" an earlier study done in the Malaysian context, Poon (2004) showed that the managers do manipulate the 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] * * * Student of MBA Program, Institute of Business Administration, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. E-mail: [email protected] the exact rating instruments and the correct procedures. Longenecker et al.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT subordinates. LITERATURE REVIEW PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS Performance appraisal is a formal organizational procedure. it includes organizational commitment as an added variable for examining the relationship of the employees' POPAP along with job satisfaction and turnover intention variables of earlier studies. A literature survey reveals that there is no study done in the Bangladeshi context specifically addressing the issue of employees' motivation to increase or reduce the performance because of POPAP. the subordinates develop their Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Politics (POPAP) which ultimately results in the employees' turnover intention. and employees' job satisfaction. Volume 16 and the philosophy of top management. For instance. The managers use this procedure to measure and evaluate their subordinates' performance with formal rating instruments on an annual or semi-annual basis (Longenecker and Ludwig. they appraise the employees exclusively on the basis of the job performance. whereas the employees' POPAP for the punishments motive may lead to negative organizational outcomes (such as reduced job satisfaction and higher inclination to quit). accurate ratings would automatically follow. Jahangir (2003) investigated a relationship between the managers' use of power. the appraisal process is greatly influenced by the managers' political motives such as the managers' personal preferences. Based on this manipulation. Similar observations have been made by Huq (1991) and Rahim and Magner' (1996). Poon (2004) also suggested that the different outcomes may emerge when the POPAP is influenced by the two contradictory reasons such as the motivational motive vs. (1996) observed that a majority of the research on performance appraisal distortions concentrated on the non-deliberate rating distortions by the raters based on the assumptions that if the raters had the required skills. Tziner et al. These researchers asserted 44 No. In addition. and organizational commitment in the Nationalized Commercial Banks (NCBs) in Bangladesh and observed that the managers of NCBs in Bangladesh do not use their reward power to appraise the employees. (1987) and Longenecker and Gioia (1988) were the first to mention that managers can distort the performance appraisals of their subordinates intentionally. the study of Pulakos (1986) on the performance rating focused on the training programs concluded that the raters would accurately rate if they had the proper training on rating performances. Some studies have made only circuitous references to the employees' POPAP in Bangladesh. employees' involvement with the unions. For instance. the punishment motive. The employees' POPAP for the motivational motive may result in the positive organizational outcomes (greater job satisfaction and lower turnover). This study has replicated the studies of Poon (2004) and Gillian and Richardson (2005) in the Bangladeshi context. procedural justice. 1990). 3 . However. Tziner et al (1996) renamed these motivations as the motivational motive and punishment motive.ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS: A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH that performance appraisals in the organizations do not take place in a vacuum. They indicated that such motives could be obtaining rewards for the subordinates or acquiring additional resources of their own departments. (1987) and proposed a typology of the rater motives and manipulative behavior in the appraisal process to describe the performance appraisal politics (Figure 1).[o. Figure 1: A Typology of Rater Motives and Manipulative Rating Behavior INFLATE • • • Keep the employee motivated Maximize the merit pay increase Avoid creating a permanent record that might damage the employees' career Reward good performance Assist an employee with a personal problem Reward employees with high effort for reward though performance is low.p. rather. Managers' pursuit of such personal goals in the performance appraisal process has been defined as the performance appraisal politics (Longenecker et al.3 . The typology classifies the motives of the raters into two types—positive and deviant and also asserts that the managers either innate or deflate ratings in order to accomplish these motives (Longenecker and Ludwig. 1987. 1990). Longenecker and Ludwig (1990) broadened the study of Longenecker et al. and observed the measures that the managers adopt in realizing these motives. 963 Volume 16 45 N. and Longenecker and Gioia. They drew on their research to argue that managers often manipulate performance ratings of their subordinates in order to realize some of tbeir own personal motives. • Liking the subordinate personally Avoid spreading a bad repute of the department Make themselves look good Avoid conflict/confrontation with a subordinate Promote a problem employee up and out • DEFLATE Scare better performance out of an employee to prevent eventual termination Build a stronger case against an employee who is destined to be terminated P O S I T I V E • • • • RATER'S MOTIVE D E V I A N T • • • • • • • • • Punish an employee Encourage an employee to quit Minimize merit pay increase Comply with an organizational edict to keep ratings low Source: Longenecker CO and Ludwig D (1990). the process is influenced by the organizational politics in general and the political intentions of the raters in particular. 1988). specifically. Nye and Witt (1993) concluded that the employees' perceptions about the workplace politics such as an unfair appraisal are negatively correlated with job satisfaction. 2004). RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS The conceptual framework of the research to establish the relationship among the studied variables is presented in Eigure 2. leads to their increased job satisfaction. 1999. job involvement. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Mowday et al. job satisfaction. and organizational withdrawal.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS AND JOB SATISFACTION Eerris et ai. and Poon. which demonstrates that organizational politics of any kind is associated with job anxiety. if they perceive that the managers are manipulating the performance appraisal process to realize their own workplace political agenda (Randall et al. 3 . They suggested that such lower commitment can lead to lower involvement with their work. and increase the turnover intention. They demonstrated that the employees' perceptions of supervisors' manipulative behavior in the appraisal process is positively correlated with the employees' turnover intention. The employees' turnover intentions are positively related to their perceptions of the workplace politics. (1982) observed that the employees' perceptions of organizational politics of any kind influence the employees' organizational commitment. (1989) developed a model of perceptions of organizational politics. The supervisors' fairness in performance appraisal is a predictor of employees' satisfaction with supervision and this in turn. Parker et al. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS AND TURNOVER INTENTION Eerris et al. (1995) in their study on some government employees posited that the employees' perceptions of unfairness in reward decisions reduce the organizational commitment of the employees. Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of the Study t — Employees' Perceptions of Performance Appraisal — Politics (EPOPAP) EPOPAP for Punishment Motive EPOPAP for Motivational Motive Employees' Job Satisfaction Employees' Organizational Commitment Employees' Turnover Intention + Volume 16 46 No. (1999) used the model of Eerris et ai. (1989) to study the outcomes of perceptions of the workplace politics. Employees' POPAP and its outcome differs significantly based on the tjipe of employees. 3 . A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH Erom this framework. Hg. To investigate the research questions.^: Employees' POPAP and its outcome differs significantly based on experience (in years). data were collected from the full time working (executive) MBA students of four business schools in the country. following hypotheses have been developed for the study: H. This led to a response rate of 33. Hy. Volume 16 This variable was measured by using a 14-item scale adopted from the Questionnaire of Political Oonsiderations in Performance Appraisal (QPOPA) developed by Tziner et al. namely. Hy Employees' POPAP for the motivational motive significantly reduces the employees' turnover intention. H.Employees'' POPAP and its outcome differs significantly based on age. Hg.Empio:yee5' POPAP for the punishment motive significantly increases their turnover intention.' • H. A total of 150 questionnaires were sent to the four business schools out of which 70 questionnaires were returned. Three questionnaires were omitted for missing data. 47 No. The responses to each item were recorded on a 6-poiñt Likert type scale ranging from ' 1 ' (very atypical) to '6' (very typical). and the School of Business (MBA Program) of the Independent University.ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS. H^: Employees' POPAP for the punishment motive significantly reduces employees' job satisfaction. the School of Business (MBA Program) of the North South University. OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES Employees' Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Politics (POPAP) H^: Employees' commitment towards the organization is significantly reduced by their POPAP for the punishment motive.5%. the Faculty of Business Studies (Evening MBA Program) of the University of Dhaka. the Institute of Business Administration (Executive MBA Program) of the University of Dhaka.. Employees' P O P A P and its outcome differs significantly based on gender. H y Employees' motivational employees towards the POPAP for the motive makes the more committed organization.: Employees' POPAP for the motivational motive significantly increases the employees' job satisfaction. (1996) and Poon (2004). METHODOLOGY RESEARCH APPROACH A correlational research design has been adopted for the study.. Eight items were used for measuring the EPOPAP for the motivational motive and the rest six items were for measuring the EPOPAP for the punishment motive. Bangladesh.. 2% bave experience of two or less tban two years) are new comers in tbeir respective jobs. correlation matrices bave been used to identify wbetber tbe relationsbip exists between tbe measured variables or not.6 17.6% of tbe respondents' age range from 20 to less tban 30. Tbe responses to all tbe tbree items were recorded on a 5-point Likerttype scale ranging from ' 1 ' (strongly disagree) to '5' (strongly agree). 88. Responses to eacb item were recorded on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from ' 1 ' (very dissatisfied) to '5' (very satisfied). RESUTLS AND INTERPREATION DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS Of tbe 67 respondents. regression analysis bas been carried out to find out tbe strengtb of Volume 16 association between tbe studied variables.1% were male and 11.0 77.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT Employées' Joh Satisfaction This variable was measured by using tbe Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) developed by Weiss et al (1967). Tbe classification of age sbows tbe sample is dominated by younger managers (Table 1). Tahle 2: Length of Service Experience (Years) Up to 2 2to4 Frequency 39 12 10 6 67 Percent 58.9 14.5 years of experience. Hence. only one respondent bas 20. Besides. Tbe items were combined and adopted tbrougb.0 48 No. However.2 17. In addition. two items were deleted during a pilot testing of tbe questionnaire due to tbeir ambiguity and repetitive nature reported by tbe respondents.5 100. a pilot testing from tbe scales of Carmeli (2003) and Cbiu and Francesco (2003). tbe age of tbe rest of tbe respondents ranges from 30 to less tban 50.0 100. Tbe original questionnaires were based on tbe turnover intention process proposed by Mobley et al (1978). On tbe otber band. Tbe work experience of tbe sample respondents is up to 20 years (Table 2).0 bas been utilized as a data analysis tool. Eacb item is cast on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ' 1 ' (strongly disagree) to '5' (strongly agree). 3 . Employees' Turnover Intention Tbe variable was measured by using tbree items. Employees' Organizatioruxl Commitment Tbe variable was measured by a 7-item sbort form of tbe Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Mowday et al (1979). Tbe original instrument consists of 20 items. Hence. Most of tbe respondents (as bigb as 58. a demograpbic profile of tbe respondents bas also been provided.9% were female. Table 1: Age Distribution of the Respondents 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. In fact.9 4to6 6 to 8 Total 9. tbe finally adapted MSQ consisted of 18 items.9 4. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Tbe study is a correlational study. SPSS 12. however.01) and significant {p < 0.24595 0. mean score for the motivational motive is 3.60 is sufficient and the reliabilities of all the constructs in this study were found to be within an acceptable range. It implies that the intention of the employees to switch their respective organizations is low.871 0. Volume 16 Number of Items 18 7 3 8 6 Mean 3. p < 0. The reliability coefficient (a).50 to 0. The mean score for the organizational commitment is 3. the response varies to a larger extent.ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS: A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION OF DESCRIPTIVE AND CORRELATION ANALYSIS Descriptive and correlations statistics among the studied variables are listed in Tables 3 and 4. however.81634) indicating that the employees are almost committed to their organizations. Correlation analysis was conducted on all the variables to explore the relationship among those.315.5445 SD 0. which means that the employees have moderately high level of job satisfaction. and turnover intention (r = 0. the SD of around 82% shows such attitude of the employees vary within the sample.949 0. Nunnally (1978) suggested that for early stages of any research.257.8010 (SD = 1.61438).7470 3.821 49 No.8010 3.81634 1. The mean value for turnover intentions of the employees is 2.91302) and for the punishment motive is 3. The mean score for job satisfaction is 3. Mean. The coefficient a for the different constructs were computed using the reliability procedure in SPSS. The bivariants correlation procedure was subject to a two tailed statistical significance at two different levels: highly significant ip < 0.01857 a 0.01) are statistically and significantly correlated with the independent variable.05). Standard Deviation. Table 3: Number of Items. p < 0.857 0.376 p < 0. organizational commitment (r = -0. higher standard deviations imply that the responses are not homogenous in nature. 3 . mean.908 0.6908 2. resulting in a higher level of the SD.01). Regarding the perception of the fairness of performance appraisal.91302 1.24595).01857). and Standardized Cronbach Alpha of Each Variable Variables Job Satisfaction (JS) Organizational Commitment (OC) Turnover Intention (TI) EPOPAP for Motivational Motive EPOPAP for Punishment Motive Note: N = 67.7470 (SD = 0. and standard deviation (SD) of all the constructs in the current study are displayed in Table 3. The seemingly lower standard deviation supports the employees' accord on this issue.6908 (SD = 0.05).6028 (SD = 0.6028 3. punishment motive. The result of correlation analysis (Table 4) provides job satisfaction (r = -0. a reliability of 0. Although the mean values suggest the presence of POPAP in terms of both the motivational motive and punishment motive.5445 (SD = 1.61438 0. **p < 0. i.315** -0. B = Coefficient (unstandardized partial regression coefficient) . the perceptions of FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF STFPWISE REGRESSION AN ALYSIS The stepwise regression analysis is summarized in the Tables 5.01.634** - - Note: *p < 0.071 0. the punishment motive is negatively related with the job satisfaction.376** 0.01) is found to be significantly and positively correlated with the other independent variable.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT Table 4: Correlation Matrix for Employees' POPAP (for Motivational Motive and Punishment Motive) with Employees' Job Satisfaction. the motivational motive. positive relationship with the motivational motive. only the organizational commitment (r = 0. it alone explains 9. AR^= Cbange in marginal R squared values of all predictors. As opposed.315** -0.190 -0. OC: Organizational Commitment and Tl: Turnover Intention Contrarily.257* 0. R2 = partial and marginal. Volume 16 No. JS: Job Satisfaction.207 SE B 0.. Besides.05.401** - 0. Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention Variables Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Turnover Intention EPOPAP for Motivational Motive EPOPAP for Punishment Motive JS - OC TI EPOPAP for Motivational Motive 0.132 0. R squared.05.075 0.064 EPOPAP for Punishment Motive -0. ***p < 0. ß = co efficient beta (standardized partial regression coefficient).001.345** -0.308* AR2 0.439** 0.05.345.099 0. On the other hand.01. 6 and 7. explains 8% variability in the employees' job satisfaction at a level of p < 0. SE B = Standard error (sigma) of B. it can be inferred that the strength of association among all the variables is weak. Thus. The regression analysis in Table 6 indicates that the employees' POPAP for the motivational motive has a significant and positive effect on the employees' commitments toward the organizations.01.08 Note: N = 67. **p < 0.179 - - 0.631** - -0. The regression results in Table 5 indicate that Table 5: Results of Stepwise Regression with Job Satisfaction as Dependent Variable Variables Step One EPOPAP for Punishment Motive Step Two EPOPAP for Punishment Motive EPOPAP for Motivational Motive B -0.e. 3 .9% variation in employees' job satisfaction at p < 0.083 ß -0. *p < 0.762** -0.265 0. p < 0. age. •?.349 0.05 > for the motivational motive imply that the employees are sensitive tQ negative attitudes of the managers regarding the performance appraisal.001.472*** - 0.055 Note: N = 67. *p < 0. .167 0.256* - - • 0.1% at p < 0.196 - 0. The results show that thé employees tend to quit their job when they apprehend any kind of reprimanding aittitude of their supervisors exhibited through the performance appraisal process. ***{)< 0. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF SUB GROUP ANALYSIS In order to facilitate the discussion. and 5.01.535*** -0.306 0. • B 0. rather thari any positive political stance thereof. However.091 0. and R^ of 18. The R^ of 11.102 0.3 .376** R2 0.585 -0. Table 7 illustrates the impact of POPAP on the turnover intention of the employees. the employees' POPAP in terms of the motivational motive restrains their turnover intention. ***p < 0.119 AR2 • - 0.01 for the punishment motive.104 ß 0. regression value of 14. At first. **p < 0.'o.378 Note: N = 67. and experience (in years). • AR2 - 0.479*** -0.< 0.001 implies that the employees reacted negatively when they perceived that the managers are using perception appraisal as a punishment mechanism and consequently their commitment toward the organizations is reduced. type of employees.5% at f < 0.7% for the punishment motive at a level ofp < 0.141 .001.05.141 ß 0. Volume 16 5 1 N.ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS: A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH Table 6: Results of Stepwise Regression with Organizational Commitment as Dependent Variable . - - 0..187 punishment motive appraises the employees significantly and negatively influences their commitment. sub group analysis was conducted'based on the gender. t-test was conducted to see whether employees' POPAP for motivational Table 7: Results of Step-Wise Regression with Turnover Intention as Dependent Variable Steps of Regression Step One EPOPAP for Punishment Motive Step Two EPOPAP for Punishment Motive EPOPAP for Motivational Motive B 0. Steps of Regression Step One EPOPAP for Motivational Motive Step Two EPOPAP for Motivational Motive .345** R2 0.478 EPOPAP for Punishment Motive -0. • SÉB 0.05.01.9% for the motivational motive at p < 0.460 SE B 0.309 .01.150 0. Equally. **p < 0. 6262 0.8333 2.2910 1.2573 1. Volume 16 52 No. M 3.7868 0. No significant difference exists.1684 0.7143 4.8704 3.7177 3.8333 2. ANOVA was employed to see whether employees' of different age opine differently in regard to POPAP for motivational motive.9345 0.1667 3.7491 3. Table 9: Summary of the findings from ANOVA—Age Factors Factors Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Age 20-30 3040 40-50 20-30 30-40 40-50 20-30 30-40 40-50 20-30 30-40 40-50 20-30 30-40 40-50 .8389 Findings No significant difference exists.7143 2.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT motive.6886 1. EPOPAP for Motivational Motive No significant difference exists.1437 0.8872 1. satisfaction and commitment level and turnover intention differs hased on their gender.1111 3. punishment motive. No significant difference exists. No significant difference exists. and Table 8: Summary of the Findings from t-test Factors Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female M 3.0577 0.3854 4.9651 0. satisfaction and commitment level.6303 0.6614 0.7514 3.6228 3.8144 0.8671 1. punishment motive. 3 .1250 3.5734 3.2974 1.9384 1. Tben.6839 t-test Findings No significant difference exists.7312 3.2778 SD 0.3266 0. Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Turnover Intention EPOPAP for Motivational Motive EPOPAP for Punishment Motive No significant difference exists No significant difference exists. No significant difference was observed between male and female in this regard (Table 8).6183 0.2361 4.7292 SD 0.9427 3.5041 0.9245 0.6877 3. EPOPAP for Punishment Motive Job Satisfaction No significant difference exists.6401 3.8431 3. Turnover Intention No significant difference exists.5164 0.4762 2.2145 1.5567 3.5195 3. significant differences in opinion are also found among the Tahle 10: Summary of the Findings from ANOVA—Type of Employees Factors Job Satisfaction Employee Type Manager of manager Manager of a unit Supervisor Executive Contractual Organizational Commitment Manager of manager Manager of a unit Supervisor Executive Contractual Turnover Intention Manager of manager Manager of a unit Supervisor Executive Contractual EPOPAP for Motivational Motive Manager of manager Manager of a unit Supervisor Executive M 4.1943 1.2413 1.01). • : Executives' opinion differs. Further.0104 EPOPAP for Punishment Motive Manager of manager Manager of a unit Supervisor Executive Contractual 3.3699 0.8889 4.05).6667 3.6872 0. .3849 0.4348 2. Contractual 3.7833 3.ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS: A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH turnover intention.7222 0.7167 3.05) ahd Supervisor.7472 0. The result of ANOVA in Table 10 extracts the findings. no significant difference was found thereof (Table 9).6474 3.8129 Findings Significant difference in opinion of Executive exists with manager of a unit (p < 0.5096 SD 0. However.6939 0.0179 3. manager of a unit (p < 0.7619 2. Significant difference in opinion of' Supervisor exists with Manager of managers (p < 0.0396 0.05).0000 4.1967 1.01) and manager of a unit (p < 0.3472 Volume 16 53 No. Significant difference also exists between Manager of managers and Supervisor (p < 0. No significant difference exists between groups.7942 3. In Addition.5536 3. Executives' opinion differs significantly with Manager of managers (p < 0. significantly from Manager of managers (f> < 0.8784 0.5396 0.2482 3.2000 4.8376 Executives' opinion differs significantly from manager of a unit (f) < 0. Nevertheless.0000 2.05) and Manager of managers (t> < 0. 0.1301 0.4406 3.6751 1.5405 0.9874 0.05). 3 .4625 0.1287 3.9954 1.01) and Manager of managers (p<0.01).05).0000 3.0533 4.8298 1.4734 4.0699 0.5901' 0.3540 3.4889 2. significant differences in opinion exist in several cases among the employees when they are classified based on their job positions. (p < 0.7917 1.1222 3.9265 1.05). appraisal.7013 0.3542 3. Commitment 0.0143 4. then value creation activity certainly having long run view. This creates confusion over what to achieve. Certainly performance is a relative issue without having a predetermined benchmark all the time.2563 1. 3 . difference exists Opinion of employees with experience of 6 &.2202 3.1117 0.05.1.9318 0.8325 1.4405 4.4125 4.0633 1.2722 0. Such a misleading perception might hamper what we call appraisal. gets' shadowed.. and politics.2713 1.1675 0.8526 No significant between groups. Certainly the term performance. 0-2 2-4 4-6 6 and above Turnover Intention 0-2 2-4 4-6 6 and above EPOPAP for Motivational Motive EPOPAP for Punishment Motive 0-2 lA ' 4-6 6 and above 0-2 2-4 4-6 6 and above employees having different level of experience.5364 4-6 years of experience exists at a level 0.9736 0. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS Three terms should get more focus in this discussion: performance.6940 3. i.5215 of p < 0. especially in EPOPAP for motivational motive.e.1380 1. Quarterly/semi-annual review of 54 No.8029 0.3299 0. Significant difference in opinion between employees with 0-2 years and 0.2431 3. has to be classified. This is what has been found through the sub-group analysis.6146 4. Whereas.7974 3. .05.9744 2.7500 2.167 3. An employee progressing at 10% rate certainly expects s/he is doing well. another one might do a threefold progress. if highly regarded as good performance. Employees' in managerial role have a quite opposite view from the executives and others in most of the cases. Corporate profit making activity. Here the difference between traditional and recent yiew are also seem. above years differs significantly with the employees having 2-4 and 4-6 years of experience.6691 .6007 3.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT Table 11: Summary of the Findings from ANOVA—^Job Experience Factors Job Satisfaction Years 0-2 • M 3.9970 1.6852 3. Volume 16 Then POPAP appears.. Now. what conforms to good performance.3000 2. 0.6111 3.6537 3. This misled appraisal might be seen negatively resulting in the perception of politics. Table 11 summarizes the findings. the question is how come the first employee would know that s/he has to excel the speed of progression.3798 1. No significant between groups. difference exists Opinion of employees with 2r4 years and 6 & above differs significantly at a level of {)< 0.2381 2.3056 SD Findings 2-4 4-6 6 and above Organizational.5778 0.4667 3. extent tbe expectation of new employees. salary. tbe person faces obstacles from tbe traditional . the problem standardizations) of tbe senior managers will persist. Tbe findings of tbe study sbould organizational encourages tbem to quit tbe not be taken as conclusive not because tbe sample size is smaller. and reduces performance appraisal or even tbe work tbe turnover intention of tbe employees. needs communication. (wbo mostly did not receive degrees in business administration sucb as BBA and CONCLUSION MBA).' and problem. Face to face discussion during appraisal migbt reduce sucb gaps arising from misinterpretation. increases the job satisfaction and be it work environment. Tbe relationsbip to sustain MBA are coming out as never before. benefits. and/or misinterpretation. tbe current study' confirms all Anotber important aspect in tbis context tbe bypotbeses and explains tbat tbe is 'expectation'.ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS: A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH performance and communication thereof might prove to be fruitful in resolving such situation failing which the same reoccurs. in tbis model migbt extract (executives witb training in business insigbtful findings and tbereby clarify tbe administration) value creation aptitude existing conflicts. However. end of the day. Do tbey expect more? employees' POPAP for the punisbment Is tbeir expectation irrational? Tbe answer motive significantly reduces tbe and to sucb query can Kelp in solving tbe employees' job satisfaction commitment. More importantly. who just started their career. At tbe corporate Bangladesb is at a cross road. Conversely. bampers tbe sense of job satisfaction' Tbese findings signify tbat tbe employees in tbem. appraisal politics tbat benefit tbem. conflicts of interests between tbe managers and employees may ensue. Volume 16 tbere is a scope of manipulation. this is what business is: More people witb background of BBA and 'relationsbip'. 55 No. misjudgment. Since performance appraisal to favor tbose kinds of performance a certain extent is a subjective matter. Tbe impact of tbese two variables. 3 . Apparently it seems there is a problem of Mainly.being perceived will be tbe scapegoat all management appróacb (management by tbe time. itself. a and the one who is being perceived. but since it organizations. two parties are being studied person-job match as they are largely in this research: the one who perceives dissatisfied with tbeir job. "Wben tbeir tbereof. Tbe closer look into tbé issue brings more relationsbip between tbese two ends up interesting scenario in front." In sbort. Otherwise. and ideas and motivation to do sometbing namely relationsbip between supervisors exceptional so tbat tbey can acbieve an and supervisee and communication exceptional career growtb. And it bas to be They are equipped with newer techniques regular. organizational commitment. Tbe eitber with sweet or bad memories. tbe employees' creates a new avenue of researcb: to wbat POPAP for the motivational motive. The sample is dominated hy young employees. No. from Military Organization". No. Turnover: An Event History pp. Vol. the aggrieved employees in retaliation try to sabotage the organizational work environment. etc. Baruch Y (1998). 2. contractual. Benkhoff B (1997). 181-207. with the moderating effect of demographic variables like age. and the employees should be encouraged to provide feedback on the system. Volume 16 56 No. pp. 6. pp. pp. 701-726. Brunetto Y and Farr-Wbarton R Commitment is Costly: New (2003). An International Journal of Police Vol. 3 . 1. 7. 2. Performance". 135-143. Notably. 26. Blau G J and Boal K R (1987). Bluedorn AC (1979). type of employment (part time. Human Relations. and full time). 288-300. of Military and Political Psychology. 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. "Assessing the and Organizational Commitment Affect • Eeffects of Organizational Turnover and Absenteeism". Future studies should address these limitations and consider the other variables sucb as the employees' anxiety. 2. 12. "Structure. stress.. Journal Human Systems Management. Academy Commitment and Job Satisfaction on of Management Review. BIBLIOGRAPHY 4. loyalty. Tbe mediating affect of tbe job satisfaction also needs to be included in the future studies. 50. pp. The management needs to introduce and encourage the open communication system to ensure free transmission of ideas. "Ignoring 5. This will satisfy the intrinsic requirements of the employees and the supervisors will be dissuaded from abusing their administrative power. the appraisal system needs to be monitored on a regular basis. 17. No. Vol. 3. Environment and Satisfaction: 1. Vol. Because. No. In addition. 2.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT The findings of this study can help the managers and the strategic decision makers of the organizations to make informed decisions. 43-63. which impediments the goals achievements of the organizations in the long run. gender. "Tbe Commitment and Approaches Establish the Missing Satisfaction of Lower-Ranked Police Link Between Commitmerit and Officers: Lessons for Management". Camp S D(1993). It has considered only a few work outcomes of the employees' perceptions of organizational politics. "Conceptualizing How Job Involvement 6. No. this policy creates discords among the employees in the organizations and leads to intractable conflicts among the subordinates and the supervisors. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION The current study is not a conclusive one. Vol. "The Rise and Fall Toward a Causal Model of Turnover of Organizational Commitment". Strategies & Management. The supervisors need to avoid abusing their power for manipulating the employees' performance appraisal in order to achieve their own political gains. International Journal of Manpower. Chen X C and Francesco A M (2000). Cook J and Wall T (1980). 22. 20. 9. Gillian G and Richardson G (2005). "Political Behaviors as Moderators of the Perceptions of Organizational PoliticsWork Outcomes Relationships". "Perceptions of Organizational Politics". and Turnover Intentions in China: Do Cultural Differences Matter?". Vol. 279-305. Chiu R K and Francesco A M (2003). Vol. 74. 16. 6. Journal of Volume 16 20. No. pp. Behavior and Outcomes: An Examination Among Senior Managers. No. No. 8. pp. pp. 19. 53. p. Stress-Related Implications. No. 19. 60.3 . No. "Perceptions of Tax Fairness and Tax Compliance in Australia and Hong Kong-A Preliminary Study". 24. "Development of a Female Faces scale for Measuring Joh Satisfaction". 39-52. 3. Ferris G R. 331-342. "The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Work Attitudes. 21. 869-887. "Leadership Power Bases in the Nationalized Commercial l 57 N. March. Vol. Dunham R B and Herman J B (1975). Vol. Journal of Management. Vol. Mellor D J. Herzherg F (1968). in Giacalone R A and Rosnfield P (Eds. 14. "Dispositional Traits and Turnover Intention: Examining the Mediating Role of Joh Satisfaction and Affective Commitment". Firth L. Ferris G R and Kacmar K M (1992). Carmeli A (2003). Human Relations. "Perceptions of Organizational Politics: Predictors. Journal of Managerial Psychology. "Co-Worker Trust as a Social Catalyst for Constructive Employee Attitudes". 284-298. 2. Organizational Commitment and Personal Needs Non-Fulfillment". Vol. 53-62. 15. 13. 53. 93-116. "Employee Demography. New Jersey. Elangovan A R (2001). Huq M (1991). pp. 3. 49. 2. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. pp. Connell J and Travaglione A (2004). 8. Ferris G R. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 17. Vol. "One More Time: How do you Motivate Employees?". Harvard Business Review. "Causal Ordering of Stress. 19. 18. 12. Hurruin Relatioru. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 159-165. Russ G S and Fandt P M (1989). pp. pp. Vol. No. 1093. No. Harrel-Cook G and Dulehohn J H (1999). 10. Commitment. 143-170. 608-622. Moore K A and Claude L (2004). Ferres N. Journal of Financial Crime. 4> pp. Organizational Commitment. Vol. The Prisonjoumal. No. 629-631. and Intention to Quit: A Structural Equation Analysis". 170-187. 18.ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS: A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH Approach". "Politics in Organization". pp. 18. 4. 233-266. Ferris G R. pp. Galang M C et al. pp.) Impression Management in the Organization. (1996). pp. No.o. Vol. pp. Vol. 7. pp. Vol. No. 788-813. 46. 12. Frink D D. and Outcomes". Managerial Psychobgy. 6. Vol. "New Work Attitude Measures of Trust. "How Can Managers Reduce Employee Intention to Quit?". 11. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal. Journal of Applied Psychology. Lawrence Erlhaum. 7. "A Causal Model of Behavioral Commitment: Evidence from a Study of Australian Blue-Collar Employees". pp. Vol. 28. 24. "Performance Appraisal Systems. No. No. 961-969. Dhaka. 3. Marsh R M and Mannari H (1977). pp. 62. and Motivation: A Case Study". Administrative Science Quarterly. 1. pp. 87-98. Pay Satisfaction. 3. "Some Possible Antecedents and Consequences of In-Role and Extra-Role Salesperson Performance". pp. Journal of Business Ethics. "The Unfolding Effects of Organizational Commitment and Anticipated Job Satisfaction on Voluntary Employee Turnover". 305-320. Adjustment to Work. M D (Ed. pp.Vol. 32.' 1. 153-160. 25. Vol. Kacmar K M. 15. pp. "Neglected at the Top: Antecedents. University of Dhaka. Center for Social Studies. Locke E A (1976). Longenecker C O and Gioia D A 37. Lofquist L H and Dawis R V (1969). Human Relations. 2. Lum L. 3 . Vol. Perceptions of Power: A Cognitive Perspective of Nationalized Gorrimercial Banks of Bangladesh. 9. 52. Carlson D S and Anthony W P(1999). Correlates. 26 Lee T W and MitcheU T R (1991). 3. "Organizational Commitment and Turnover: A Prediction Study". 4. Sloan Management Review. Mano-Negrin R (1998). 29. No.. Vol. New York. 19. Public Personnel Management. Motivation and Eniotion. "Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal". "Explaining Nursing Turnover Intent: Job Satisfaction.Podsakoff P M and Ahearne M (1998). Journal of Management. 35. No. 27. pp.) and Gioia D A (1987). 45-60. Century-Crofits. No.). 141-159. Longenecker C O and Ludwig D (1990). 57-75. 31. in Dunnette Appraisals". 34. Jahangir N (2003). Vol. Larson E W and Fukami C V(1984). Longenecker C O. 222-226. No. 23. The Academy of Management Executive. No. "Relationships Between Worker Behavior and Commitment to the Organization and Union". pp. 22. Journal of Marketing. pp. pp. Clark K. 30. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of the (1988). Rand McNally. pp. Vol. pp. Sims H P Qr. Iveron R D and Roy P (1994). 29. Joumai ofOrganizadand Behavior. Mani B G (2002). Dhaka. 383-417. 2. Chicago. 24. Vol. No. Vol. 41-47. "The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction". 3. and Executives Talk About Executive Volume 16 58 No. 33. "An Examination of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Model: Replication and Extension". Academy of Management Proceeding. 36. No. MacKenzie S B. 1. 40. 1297-1349. 31. 183-193. Mathieu J E and Zajac D M (1990). 12. Reid F and Sirola W (1998). Banks in Bangladesh". "Occupational Determinants of Work Attitudes and Organizational Attachment". Productivity.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 22. "Ethical Dilemmas in Performance Appraisal Revisited". Bozeman D P. Kervin J. No. Unpublished Masters Thesis. AppletonVol. 3. pp. No. Health Manpower Management. Vol. 99-121. or Organizational Commitment?". Handbook of lr\dustrial and OrganizaüonalPsychohgy. Commitment. Human Resource Management Review. 4. Journal of Journal of Managerial Psychology. Performance Appraisal: An 40. Vol. No. Employee-Organization Organizational Commitment: Some Linkages: The Psychology of Methodological Considerations". Meyer J P and Allen N J (1984). pp. Behavior. No. Vol. Naumann E. Academy of 49. 891-912. Vol. "Perceptions of Organizat44. 316-340. Management and Administration. 24. New York. Hand H Hill. Mowday R T. 2. Vol. 224-247. Employee Turnover". No. pp. 493-522. Mitchel J O (1981). Mobley W H (1977). Murphy K R and Cleveland J N (1991). R M (1982). 2. 86. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. Personal and Bacon. pp. Organizational Variables on Managerial Turnover". Relationship Between Work Attitudes No. Mobley W H. 372-378. No. 25. 108. The Journal of Linkages in the Relationship Between Personal Selling & Sales Management. pp. pp. "A 47. Oshagbemi T (1996). Vol. 45. Porter L W and Steers. 73-78. AUyn and Intentions. 10. S L (1995). 2. "An Satisfaction: How Good are Single Evaluation of Precursors of Hospital Versus Multiple-Item Measures?". No. No. Vol. Journal Commitment". pp. pp. Journal of Vocational of Organizational Commitment". Boston. pp. 1. 20. Turnover". Horner S O and 52. Absenteeism. pp. Mobley. 408-414. of Vocational Behavior. 61-89. "Review and Conceptual Analysis of the 51. "Measurement of Organizational Commitment". Vol. journal of Applied Psychology. Widmier S M and Jackson D W (2000). ACM. pp. "Employee Absenteeism: A Review of the Three-Component Conceptp-ualization Literature". "Intermediate Expatriate Salespeople". 389-400.ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS: A STUDY ON EXECUTIVE MBA STUDENTS IN BANGLADESH R M (1979). • ional Politics: An Investigation of "How to Turn Around 'Turnover Antecedents and Consequences". 69. 62. No. W H. 14. pp. 3 . and Propensity to Leave Among 41. of UK Academics". 4. 43. pp. No. No. Parker C i^ Dipboye R L and Jackson. 237-240. 24. Muchinsky P M (1977). No. 4. Meyer J P and Allen N J (1991). 171-194. 38. Porter L W and Steers Consequences of Organizational Volume 16 59 No. 1. Mowday R T. 63. New York. "Examining Management Journal. Griffeth R W. Oshagbemi T (1999). 21. Job Satisfaction and Employee Vol. 45. 48. Academic Press. 53. pp. 3. 4. Vol. Vol. Communications of the Journal of Management. 227-241. Culture' in IT". "Job Satisfaction Employee Turnover Process". H and Meglino B M (1979). 5. "Overall Job Hollingsworth A T (1978). "Testing the 'Side-bet Theory' of 46. pp. "The Effect of Organizational Perspective. Vol. 39. 4. Introduction to Psychological Measurement. and Journal of Applied Psychology. Educational Psychological Bulletin. Tenure. 50. Turnover. Nunnally J C (1978). McGraw 42. 742-751. Moore J E and Burke L A (2002). Vol. Vol. Applied Psychology. 388-403. No. MN. Vol. Rand Antecedents and Outcomes of McNally. 3. 625-638. ment of Training Programs to Increase No. Cbicago. Vol. No. Latbam G P. "Conflict and 68. Steers R M (1977). 580-598. Turnover Models: A Reanalysis Human Relations. Pulakos E D (1986). 495-516. 20. 1. 179-190. No. 15. 508-514. Suliman A M and lies P A (2000). Poon J M L (2003). No. "Organizational Politics and Jourrud of Managerial Psychology. No. Vroom V (1964). Administrative Science 55. 3. Organizational Commitment in a pp. Using Latent Variable Structural pp. Commitment". 17.322-334. Satisfaction and Turnover Intention". Reicbers A E (1986). 17. Vol.SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANACEMENT 54. 22. New York. "Effects of Quarterly. 64. Wong Y. Vol. Weisberg J (1994). and Validation of a Questionnaire for pp. Organizational Support as Predictors No. 62. Outcomes of Organizational Vol. 67. "Job Satisfaction and Organizational "Antecedents and Consequences of Commitment in Relation to Work Satisfaction and Commitment in Performance and Turnover Intentions". University of Minnesota. Job Performance. (1969). Volume 16 60 No. 219-231. International Journal of Behavior. Rabim M A and Magner N R (1996). No. pp. "Tbe Multi-Dimensional Nature oí Personnel Review. "Affective Organizational Commitment Borman C A and Birjuin A (1999). 1. 76-91. Across Groups". 42. The Measurement of Satisfaction pp. 71. 71. 59. pp. Manpower. No. pp. 71-82. Journal of 61. Journal of Organizational Bases of Leader Power: First-Order Behavior. MuMvariate Behavioral Jobn Wiley. 7. Factor Model and Its Invariance 65. 18. Smitb P C. Journal of 56. Work and Motivation. 38. Journal of Organizational Leave". of Work Attitudes. "Situational in Work and Retirement. 1 and 2. 3 . 58. 31. Sbore L M and Martin H J (1989). 159-174. Performance Appraisal Politics on Job 63. Dawis R V. 2. "Measuring and Organizational Citizensbip Workers' Burnout and Intention to Bebavior". Non-Western Context". Vol. pp. of Workers in Cbinese Joint Ventures". Tziner A. 4-14. Vol. 138455. 66. Nos. 2. "Tbe DevelopManagement Development. England G W Organizational Commitment". "Development Decision Processes. Poon J M L (2004). Manual for of Applied Psychology. 33. Accuracy in Different Rating Tasks". Vol. Organizational Politics Perceptions". Weiss D J. Price B S and Organizational Behavior and Human Haccoun R (1996). Vol. pp. 19. Considerations in Performance "Confirmatory Factor Analysis of tbe Appraisal". pp. Vol. Measuring Perceived Political 57. Vol. Williams L J and Hazer J T (1986). 69. pp. Vol. the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire pp. Cropanzano R. No. 4. 46-56. Ngo H and Wong C (2002). 1. 1. Randall M L. Equation Metbods". 60. No. Journal and Lofquist L H (1967). pp. Research. 7. "Antecedents and Journal of Managerial Psychology. Kendall C M and Hulin C L Applied Psychology. Vol. However. or email articles for individual use. users may print. download. .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. Documents Similar To Organizational Outcomes of Appraisal PoliticsSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextOrganizational PoliticsProductivityThe Influence of Perception of Organizational Politics on EmployeeQuestionnaire of Career salience and perceived organizational support on job involvement Turnover and Absenteeism Have Similar Effects Upon Organizational Productivity and CostsPurchasing ManagementWorkplace Deviant BehaviourEvent ManagementRelationship of Organizational Politics With Unethical Leadership and Job StressPurchasing ManagementOrganization04-The Role of Organizational Politics, Contextual Resources,Perceptions of Organizational PoliticsChange ManagementProjectsPerformance Appraisal SamplesEvent ManagementThe Effect of Organizational Culture and Leadership Style on Organizational Commitment Within Smes in Suriname, With Job Satisfaction as a MediatorPurposes of Performance AppraisalSocial Recognition & Employees Organizational ComitmentHow to Answer Performance Appraisal Questionsnewpptofpaautosavedcopyyyyyyyyy-100322114216-phpapp02Event ManagementPcm Case StudyFooter MenuBack To TopAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersSocial MediaCopyright © 2018 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaSign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadClose DialogAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOK