Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and work performance

Bård Kuvaas (Department of Leadership and Organisation Management, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway)

Personnel Review

ISSN: 0048-3486

Publication date: 17 April 2007

Abstract

Purpose

It is often suggested that in order for performance appraisal to positively influence employee behaviour, employees must experience positive appraisal reactions. The purpose of the present study is to examine two different models of the relationship between employee perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and self‐reported work performance: a mediation model and a moderation model.

Design/methodology/approach

Results from a cross‐sectional survey of 434 employees showed that the relationship between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and self‐reported work performance was mediated by employees' intrinsic motivation, and strongly moderated by their autonomy orientation.

Findings

For employees with a weak autonomy orientation, the relationship was positive, but for those with a strong autonomy orientation, the relationship was negative.

Research limitations/implications

The two most important limitations, which are discussed in more detail at the end of the paper, are the cross‐sectional nature of the study and the reliance on self‐reported questionnaire data. Consequently, experimental studies are needed to examine causality issues.

Originality/value

The most interesting and practically relevant finding is that autonomy orientation moderated the relationship between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and work performance. Accordingly, extra emphasis should be put on participative and autonomy supportive application of performance appraisal involving employees with a strong autonomy orientation.

Keywords

Citation

Kuvaas, B. (2007), "Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and work performance", Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 378-397. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710731338

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2007, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Please note you might not have access to this content

You may be able to access this content by login via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
If you would like to contact us about accessing this content, click the button and fill out the form.
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.