Talent categorization & justice perception: an empirical study.
Chowdhury, Arup Roy ; Jomon, M.G.
In a large manufacturing setup employees are categorized either as
learner (low performer), competent (average performer) or leader (high
performer) by their superiors during annual performance appraisal. This
paper investigates and analyzes as to how this categorization and
perception as frozen out during yearly talent reviews affects outcomes
on (a)individual mindset in human resource parlance with respect to job
satisfaction, turnover intention and job engagement and (b) justice
perception. The study has used the empirical method of analysis and
field based research to examine the concepts and based on the findings
concludes that talent differentiation has an impact on individual
mindset and justice perception.
Introduction
Every year, after the conclusion of performance appraisal cycle a
series of heartburn gets evidenced amongst the employees. All of a
sudden the pre appraisal vibrant ambience and enthusiastic employees
turn into a gloomy group and pale/withdrawn faces are testimony to this
fact. The same was the scenario in a large manufacturing setup where the
study was carried out. Here employees are categorized either as learner,
competent or leader during annual talent review as per PMS guidelines
referred in Tables 1 and 2. It is in the aforesaid context this paper
analyzes as to how this categorization and perception as frozen during
yearly talent reviews affects: (a) individual mindset as an outcome in
human resource parlance with respect to job satisfaction, turnover
intention and job engagement and (b) organizational justice perception.
Williams and Levy (2000) observed that the manner in which talent
categorization process is carried out in an organization significantly
influences employee mindset towards work, their superiors, peers and
operating system. Hence individual perceptions and their mindset with
respect to different aspects of talent categorization process may be of
utmost importance to organizational performance in the long run. Various
researches carried out in the past suggest that talent differentiation
has an impact on job satisfaction (MacBeath, 2006); low attrition rate
(Di Romualdo, 2009; Tansley, 2007; Yapp, 2009); employee engagement (Di
Romualdo, 2009; Gandossy & Kao, 2004). Available literature has also
taken a cue from the self-efficacy theory of Bandura to explain the
impact of talent categorization on employees' job satisfaction,
intention to quit and employee engagement. The theory explains the
psychological impact arising out of talent categorization (Bandura,
1997).
Research Question
RQ1: Does talent categorization of individual as leader, competent
and learner during end year appraisal have a differential impact on
individual mindset dimensions with respect to job satisfaction, turnover
intention and work engagement?
RQ 2: Does talent categorization of individual as leader, competent
and learner during end year appraisal have an impact on the outcome of
his/her perception on organizational justice dimensions?
Individual Mindset & Justice Perception
Human beings are emotional in nature. Hence, irrespective of
whether we encounter issues at home/social life or at workplace with
superior/peer, the outcome leaves an impact on our mindset. The moment
employees are ranked as superior/ mediocre at the end of the year, the
bone of contention begins on the objectivity of assessment by superior.
Erdogan (2002) argued that employee emotions, their mindset and
justice perceptions are important determinants to ascertain
effectiveness of talent differentiation process. Boyd and Kyle (2004)
have tried to find out the impact of procedural, distributive and
interactional justice by assessing employee perceptions on talent
categorization. A correlation between justice perception and individual
mindset may be justified by studying the antecedents and consequences of
justice perceptions on individual mindset as an outcome of talent
categorization (Erdogan, 2002). However, very few research studies are
carried out till date to investigate the influence of justice
perceptions on employee mindset (Jawahar, 2007).
Procedural Justice
An organizational system may be considered as procedurally fair if:
(a) there exists consistency, uniformity and transparency in laid down
organizational procedures; (b) the process owners, implementers are
neutral and impartial and (c) there exists an ambience of equal
opportunity. Application of "due process" metaphor by Folger
(1992) emphasized on attributes like adequate opportunity, fair hearing
and judgment based on evidence to describe a procedurally fair appraisal
system.
Distributive Justice
Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin (1996) emphasized that organizational
systems having high level of distributive justice reflected greater job
satisfaction. Literature suggests that performance appraisal system has
taken a cue from Adams' equity theory (Adams, 1965) which suggests
that individuals may feel dejected if there is a mismatch between
efforts put in by them vis-a-vis the outcome. Haar and Chester (2009)
stated that in case individual perceives distributive inequity,
intention to quit the organization crops up in his/her mind.
Interactional Justice
It is said in workplace parlance that half of the issues get
resolved if there is an amicable interpersonal effectiveness between
members working in the organization. Injustice parlance this may be
referred as interactional justice. Greenberg (1993) suggested that,
employees are affected by, the sensitivity shown by their superibrs,
peers, subordinates and other stakeholders.
Objective of the Study
To evaluate the impact of talent categorization on individual
mindset and organizational justice perception in a manufacturing set up
and to find out the significant attributes of organizational justice
dimensions having maximum influence on the perceptions of employees
rated as leader, competent or learner.
Method of Study
The study has focused on talent categorization of employees working
in a manufacturing organization. Management approval was taken for
conducting the research study and appraisal data was collected with the
condition that it will be used for research study only. Organization
name as well as employees' names will be kept confidential.
Appraisal data of last three years were collected for randomly selected
individuals for the purpose of categorizing them as per the existing
norms of talent classification of the organization.
Sample
Pre-test and post-test data were collected through survey on the
following aspects:
a) Annual performance rating and talent categorization (learner/
competent/ leader) of 150 employees.
b) Variables such as Job satisfaction, Job engagement,
Employees' turnover intention are measured on a five point Likert
scale i.e. "1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=
Agree, 5= Strongly Agree".
The survey questionnaires were sent to a total of 187 employees.
Responses were received from 150 employees which was around 80.2 % of
initial sample considered for the survey (Table 3).
The survey was conducted during Oct'12 - Mar'13. Pre-test
data was collected in Oct'12 prior to annual appraisal of FY'
13, and post- test data was collected in Mar' 13 in FY' 13.
Survey questionnaires were distributed to same set of employees
categorized as leaders/competent/learners for pre-test as well as
post-test.
Hypotheses
Basic framework for study is given in fig. 1. The hypotheses taken
for the study are stated as:
Hypothesis 1: Employees rated as leaders in PMS will be positively
related to job satisfaction, intention to quit and job engagement than
those rated as competent or learners.
Hypothesis 2: Employees rated as leaders in PM, S, will perceive
positively towards procedural, distributive and interactional justice
than those rated as competent or learners.
<2MPJ026H_TB003>
Hypothesis 3: Amongst attributes of organizational justice
dimensions, performance feedback and awareness on organizational
policies/processes will significantly influence the perceptions of
employees rated as leader, competent or learner.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Measures
Job satisfaction was measured with items adapted from Neuberger and
Allerbeck (1978) and Tsui, Egan and O'Reilly III (1992). The
adapted instrument consisted of 10 items. Sample items include, "I
am satisfied with the nature of work I perform"; "I am
satisfied with my immediate superior"; "I am satisfied with
relations with my colleagues"; "I am satisfied with my growth
opportunities existing in this organization"; "I do feel that
the work I do is appreciated" etc. The questionnaire to this extent
was refined as per organizational need for the purpose of study.
Internal consistency of scale was established by calculating Cronbach
alpha which was found to be 0.79.
Employees turnover intention was measured with items adapted from
Aryee, Budhwar and Chen (2002); Hopkins and Weathington (2006); Grote
and Staffelbach (2011). Sample items include, "I often think about
quitting my job with my present organization"; "I will
probably look for a new job within the next year"; "Those who
do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted"; "My
last performance evaluation assisted me in improving my work" etc.
Internal consistency of the scale was established by calculating
Cronbach alpha which was found to be 0.86.
Job engagement was measured with items adapted from Aon Hewitt
Engagement Survey framework. Sample items include, "At my work, I
feel bursting with energy"; "My job inspires me";
"When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work";
"I am proud of the work that I do"; "I get carried away
when I am working"; etc. The scale's alpha reliability was
found to be 0.76.
Justice perception with respect to procedural justice, distributive
Justice and interactional justice was measured with items adapted from
Colquitt (2001), Keeping and Levy (2000), Sweeney and McFarlin (1993).
The questionnaire to this extent was refined as per organizational need
for the purpose of study. Sample items include, "My superior is
accountable for the rating given by him"; "There is provision
in HR policy for change of unfair/incorrect annual appraisal
ratings"; "My superior rates his subordinates without any
external pressure or biasness"; "My promotion and compensation
related decisions made by superior is objective and fair"; "My
superior justify my ratings in talent reviews through factual data and
my actual contributions"; "I am encouraged by my superior to
clarify my performance rating during one-to-one feedback session"
etc. The scale's alpha reliability was found to be 0.73.
Individual Mindset Index
An index is proposed to measure individual mindset which is arrived
at by taking the weighted average of job satisfaction, intention to quit
and job engagement index on a 5 point scale.
Justice Perception Index
An index is proposed to measure justice perception which is arrived
at by taking the weighted average of justice dimensions with respect to
procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice
perception on a 5 point scale.
Control Variables
Clark (1997), Gilliam (2010), Jalal Sarker, Crossman and
Chinmeteepituck (2003) in their studies have highlighted the potential
significant relationships that may exist between different demographic
variables like gender, age, tenure, job satisfaction, employees turnover
intention, job engagement etc. Hence, related data on the aforesaid was
compiled and analyzed.
Significant attributors of justice dimensions with respect to
procedural, distributive and interactional justice perceptions were
defined. These are KRA setting, performance feedback, appraisee's
participation in appraisal process, perceived knowledge of appraisee on
existing organizational procedure and system.
Individual Mindset Dimensions
Pre Test: Mean score for items in the individual mindset dimensions
for employees of the manufacturing unit rated as leaders, competent and
learners ranged from 4.09 to 4.5; 2.59 to 3.1; 1.87 to 2.69
respectively. With respect to job satisfaction, mean values indicated
that perception of employees categorized as leaders (Mean=4.44, SD=0.49)
was higher than those categorized as competent (Mean=2.83, SD= 0.85) and
that of learners (Mean=l .87, SD=0.60). Mean values for items of
employee turnover intention throws contrast perception of employees
categorized as leaders (Mean = 4.09, SD=0.57); competent (Mean=3.10,
SD=0.75); learners (Mean=2.69, SD=0.67). This suggests that the
perception of employees on intention to quit varies with talent
categorization type they are tagged with during performance appraisal.
Mean values for reverse scored items ("Those who do well on
the job stand a fair chance of being promoted"; "In my
company, I get the opportunity to realize myself'; "My last
performance evaluation assisted me in improving my work"; "I
receive useful evaluations of my strengths and weaknesses at work")
in intention to quit dimension indicated poor satisfaction: competent
(Mean = 2.17, SD=0.88); learner (Mean = 1.37, SD= 0.67). Descriptive
statistics on work engagement dimension for employees categorized as
leaders (Mean = 4.5; SD=0.50); competent (Mean=2.59, SD=0.89); learners
(Mean=2.26, SD=0.52) indicated that those categorized as leaders
perceived high level of work engagement in the organization. On the
contrary those categorized as competent and learners did not perceive
so.
Post-Test: Mean score for items in individual mindset dimensions
for employees rated as leaders, competent and learners ranged from 4.07
to 4.57; 2.49 to 3.0; 1.70 to 2.11 respectively. This shows that there
is a decreasing trend in the perception of employees categorized as
competent or learners if the talent categorization status of these
respondents remained the same as it was during pre-test phase.
With respect to job satisfaction, mean values of variables
indicated that employees categorized as leaders were quite satisfied as
compared to those categorized as competent or learners: leaders
(Mean=4.49; SD=0.50); competent (Mean = 2.68; SD= 0.83); learners
(Mean=1.70; SD=0.61). On the employee turnover intention, responses
indicated low intention to quit for those categorized as leaders;
moderate intention to quit for employees categorized as competent; high
intention to quit for those categorized as learners: leaders (Mean=4.07,
SD=0.60); competent (Mean=3.0, SD=0.77); learners (Mean=2.65, SD=0.69).
Mean values for reverse scored items ("Those who do well on
the job stand a fair chance of being promoted; In my company, I get the
opportunity to realize myself; My last performance evaluation assisted
me in improving my work; I receive useful evaluations of my strengths
and weaknesses at work") in intention to quit dimension indicated
poor satisfaction: competent (Mean=2.41; SD=0.75); learner (Mean=l.57;
SD= 0.70).
Descriptive statistics on work engagement for employees categorised
as leaders (Mean=4.57; SD=0.49); competent (Mean=2.49; SD=0.89);
learners (Mean=2.11; SD=0.52) indicated that those categorised as
competent or learners perceived low level of engagement and commitment
in the organisation.
The aforesaid comparison and analysis of pre test & post test
data with respect to individual mindset dimensions indicates support for
Hypothesis 1.
Justice Perception Dimensions
Pre-Test: Mean score for items in justice perception dimensions for
the employees of manufacturing unit rated as leaders, competent and
learners ranged from 4.27 to 4.49, 2.98 to 3.13 and 1.30 to 1.41
respectively. Mean values indicated that employees rated as leaders
during annual PMS perceived positively towards procedural justice as
compared to employees rated as competent/learners: Leaders (Mean=4.27,
SD=0.50); competent (Mean=2.98; SD=0.79); learner (Mean=1.41; SD=0.48).
On the distributive justice perception, responses indicated that
employees rated as leaders during annual PMS perceived positively as
compared to employees rated as competent/learners: leaders (Mean=4.49;
SD=0.5I); competent (Mean=3.13, SD=0.75); learner (Mean=1.30, SD=0.45).
Descriptive statistics on interactional justice perception for leaders
(Mean=4.49; SD=0.51); competent (Mean-3.13, SD=0.76); learners (Mean=l
.30, SD=0.44) indicated that employees rated as leaders during annual
PMS perceived that there exists high level of interactional justice in
the organization.
Post Test: Mean score for items in justice perception dimensions
for employees of manufacturing unit rated as leaders, competent and
learners ranged from 4.50 to 4.56,2.85 to 2.96 and 1.21 to 1.26
respectively. Mean values indicated that employees rated as leaders
during annual PMS perceived positively towards procedural justice as
compared to employees rated as competent/learners: leaders (Mean=4.50,
SD=0.50); competent (Mean=2.85, SD=0.82); learner (Mean=1.26, SD=0.47).
On distributive justice perception, responses indicated that employees
rated as leaders during annual PMS perceived positively as compared to
employees rated as competent/ learners: leaders (Mean=4.56, SD=0.50),
competent (Mean=2.96, SD=0.78); learner (Mean= 1.21, SD=0.39).
Descriptive statistics on interactional justice perception for leaders
(Mean=4.56, SD=0.50); competent (Mean=2.96, SD=0.78); learners
(Mean=1.21, SD=0.39) indicated that employees rated as leaders during
annual PMS perceived that there exists high level of interactional
justice in the organization.
The aforesaid comparison and analysis of pre-test and post-test
data with respect to individual mindset dimensions indicate support for
hypothesis 2.
Correlation Analysis
Among organizational justice dimensions, distributive justice had a
significant positive correlation with tenure (r=0.14, p< 0.05) only,
while interactional justice had significant correlation with age
(r=0.10, p<0.01), tenure (r=0.17, p<0.05) (Table 4). Correlation
analysis between individual mindset dimensions and demographic
characteristics of respondents suggests that only job engagement had a
significant relationship with age (r=0.22, p<0.01), gender (r=- 0.14,
p<0.01), tenure (r=0.39, p<0.01) (Table 5). Inter-correlation
amongst organizational justice dimensions suggests highest correlation
of 0.69 (p<0.01) (Table 6) between procedural and interactional
justice. Significant positive correlation was also observed between
distributive and interactional justice (r= 0.59, p<0.01) as well as
procedural and distributive justice (r=0.55, p<0.01).
Analysis also revealed significant positive correlation ranging
from 0.42 to 0.71 (p<0.01) between perceptions regarding justice
dimensions and individual mindset dimensions. All the justice
dimensions, viz., procedural, distributive and interactional justice had
highest correlation with intention to quit (r=0.71, r=0.55, r=0.66;
p<0.01 respectively) (Table 6). This suggests that by addressing
attrition related attributes, issues/processes, the individual fairness
perceptions towards prevailing organisational system may improve.
Each individual mindset dimension was positively and significantly
correlated with the other (Table 6). Amongst the individual mindset
dimensions, job engagement and job satisfaction had highest positive
correlation with intention to quit dimension (r=0.60, p<0.01; r=0.58,
p<0.01 respectively) (Table 5).
Positive correlation exists between employees categorized as
leaders with job satisfaction (r=.39, p<.05) and job engagement
(r=.41, p<.01).
Regression Analysis
To examine hypothesis 3, it was imperative to see which variable
(s) identified in the study (amongst organisational justice dimensions)
had maximum influence on the perceptions of employees rated as leader,
competent or learner. In order to identify the significant predictors of
organisational justice dimensions, multiple regression analysis was
carried out for each dimension, for employees rated as leader, competent
or learner. Three multiple regression analyses were run for procedural,
distributive and interactional justice dimensions and these are
presented in Tables 7, 8 and 9 respectively.
Regression analysis results suggest that all four variables
significantly predicted procedural justice (PJ) perceptions of officers
rated as leader, competent or learner (adjusted R2= 0.48; F= 105.8,
p< 0.00). [beta] value of 0.39 (p<0.00) (Table 7) indicated
maximum influence of performance feedback on procedural justice
perceptions followed by awareness on organisational policies/processes
with a [beta] weight of 0.19 (p<0.00). The other two variables,
appraisee's participation and KRA Setting, did increase the
predictability of the model but only to a limited extent. From the
[beta] weights of feedback (0.29, p<0.00) and awareness on
organisational policies/processes (0.24, p<0.00), it can be inferred
that these two dimensions were the only significant predictors for
distributive justice and together explained 28% variance (Table 8). With
respect to interactional justice perceptions, feedback, awareness on
organisational policies/processes and appraisee's participation in
performance management process accounted for 41% variance (adjusted R2 =
0.41, F = 75.9, p<0.00) (Table 9). Similarly for procedural and
distributive justice, performance feed back emerged as the most
significant predictor with a [beta] weight of 0.39 & 0.29
(p<0.00). The aforesaid results supported hypothesis 3.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) about the perception of
employees rated as leaders, competent, learners during annual PMS
regarding individual mindset dimensions suggests support for hypotheses
1 & 2.
Perception on job satisfaction for respondents differed
significantly (F=21.63, p<.01) as reflected in their mean score:
leaders (pre-test C=4.44, post-test C=4.49); competent (pre-test C=2.83,
post-test C=2.68); learners (pre- test C=1.87, post-test, C=1.70).
The results suggest that employees rated as leaders perceive higher
job satisfaction than those rated as competent or learners. The mean
scores for pre and post tests suggest that the perception becomes worse
if an employee is continued to be rated as competent or learner. This is
contrary to the employee satisfaction survey findings which suggest that
employees are highly satisfied with their jobs. Hence it may be inferred
from the survey outcome that perception of employees gets changed with
the type of rating they are tagged with during annual PMS System. This
kind of psychological impact on the mindset of employees may be
short-lived, however if not addressed properly may create chaos in
future.
There was significant difference among the perception of
respondents regarding intention to quit (F=23.61, p<.01) as reflected
in the mean score for leaders (pre-test C=4.09, post-test 04.07),
competent (pre-test 03.10, post-test 03.19); learners (pre-test, 02.69,
posttest 02.81). The results suggest that the intention to quit shows an
upward trend for respondents rated as competent and learners in annual
PMS. However, this perception doesn't get reflected in the
attrition rate. Hence one needs to really find out as to what are the
other indirect impacts of this dissatisfaction. While a dip in the
employee productivity for a period of 3-4 months after the appraisal
feedback may not be that alarming, however one has to be cautious that
this does not have a long term impact on organisation's
productivity and performance.
Respondents' perception regarding job engagement varied
significantly (F= 22.19, p<.01). The pre and post test mean scores
for competent and learners suggest that there is a downward trend in
engagement to disengagement ratio: competent (pre-test C=2.59, post-test
C=2.49); learners (pre-test C=2.26, posttest C=2.11); leaders (pre- test
C=4.50, post-test C=4.57). This corroborates the recently concluded
findings of employee engagement study conducted by Aon Hewitt in the
organisation.
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) about the perception of
employees rated as leaders, competent, learners during annual PMS
regarding justice perception dimensions suggests support for hypothesis
2.
Perception on procedural justice for respondents categorised as
leaders, competent and learners differed significantly (F=23.71,
p<.01) as reflected in their mean scores: leaders (pre-test C=4.27,
post-test C=4.50); competent (pre-test C=2.98, post-test C=2.85);
learners (pretest C=1.41, post-test C= 1.26).
The findings suggest that employees do have a feeling that the
process owners, implementers are not neutral/impartial and there exists
an element of doubt in their mind regarding equal opportunity being
extended. This kind of perception if not addressed might impact
organizational climate in the years to come.
There was significant difference among the perception of
respondents regarding distributive justice (F=25.43, p<.01) as
reflected in the mean score for leaders (pre-test C=4.49, post-test
C=4.56); competent (pre-test C=3.13, post-test C=2.96); learners
(pre-test C=1.30, post-test C=1.21). The results sync with the findings
of job satisfaction and also corroborate the observation made by Tang
and Sarsfield-Baldwin (1996) who emphasized that organizational systems
having low level of distributive justice result in lower job
satisfaction.
Respondents' perception regarding interactional justice varied
significantly (F=25.43, p<.01). The pre and post test mean scores for
competent and learners suggest that there is a downward trend in
perception related to interactional justice aspect: competent (pre -test
C=3.13, post-test C=2.96); learners (pre-test C=1.30, post-test C=1.21);
leaders (pre -test C=4.49; post- test C=4.56). This suggests that
employees categorised as competent or learners may not have received
fair interpersonal treatment during the implementation of organizational
processes.
Discussion
In today's scenario employees expect principles like
authenticity, trust, involvement and personalisation to resonate
strongly in their workplace. Hence progressive thought process of HR is
the need of the hour.
It was quite evident that individual mindset dimensions with
respect to job engagement, intention to quit and job satisfaction got
influenced with the type of rating a person had during his/her end year
appraisal. Hence it could happen that the perception may remain as it is
till the status quo on rating changes in the next PMS cycle.
The results suggest need for top management intervention in the
area of appraisee's involvement in performance management system.
Though organisation claims that appraisees participation and involvement
is given high priority and being institutionalized in PMS, however the
results show that this attribute was perceived as low by employees rated
as leader, competent or learner. The organisation needs to address this
loop. This can be improved if compliance to performance dialogue during
mid -year/ end year appraisal happens and is reviewed by HR/Talent
Review team/ Sr Executives. Also emphasis should be given on
employees' participation during KRA setting.
The results on justice perception also reflect lack of
trust/transparency amongst employees with respect to PMS. HR team should
conduct dialogues and awareness sessions with employees/line managers
and explain the philosophy of talent categorisation. The confusion
appears to be with the ratings of individual as leaders, competent or
learners. If the criteria of categorisation be made clear to employees,
perhaps the heartburn will reduce a bit. The regular dialogues combined
with action taken report on issues/grievances raised during dialogues
may improve perceptions related to procedural justice fairness. The
results obtained in this paper seem to support the interrelationship
between individual mindset and justice perception dimensions.
While regression results revealed that awareness on organisational
policies/processes of employees did have an influence on interactional
justice perceptions, however appraisee's participation, though an
important aspect and which could have influenced interactional justice
perceptions, did not improve the predictive capability of the regression
model to a very large extent.
Limitation and Scope for Future Research
The results of the study were intuitive. However, the findings
cannot be generalized to other organizations as the study was focused on
the manufacturing organization. The small sample size of the respondents
also reduces the generalizability of these findings to individuals not
employed by this organization. Since the results may vary from industry
to industry depending on its size, sector etc, it becomes imperative to
carry out the same study in other organizations in different sectors
like automotive, insurance, IT, banking to generalize the findings.
Conclusion
Despite the limitations, results suggest a number of important
practical implications. According to the efficacy theory, high
performers believe in the opportunity to rise high in the organization.
However, employees who are not categorized as leaders evaluate their
situation taking into account the expectations or categorization of
their counterparts. It could happen because of low rating the average
employees get a second preference in terms of development opportunities
as compared to high performers. Hence, it becomes imperative to have a
regular employee dialogue by the superiors before appraisal and
accordingly development plans should be chalked out. This will bring
clarity on job, leadership expectancy and career objectives. Once these
are being identified, career development opportunities should be chalked
out and implemented. Available literature also suggests that career
progressions and development plan play a vital role in employee's
motivation (Gandossy & Kao, 2004; McGrath, 2008), Job satisfaction
(Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001) and Commitment (Bartlett, 2001). This
will certainly help the employee concerned to have a clear picture as to
whether the opportunities they are being provided actually match their
expectations, skills and expertise. This will also minimize the
subjectivity an employee perceives that his/her colleagues are rated
high in spite of his performance similar to the colleague's. Also
role of business heads/line manager plays a significant contribution in
changing the perception. Though HR has to act as a facilitator to make
both appraisee and appraiser to understand the performance management
criteria and philosophy, it's actually the line manager/business
heads who have to take his subordinate into confidence by setting up
clear expectations by means of robust KRA setting followed by regular
performance review. This would help in minimizing the subjectivity
related to performance rating as well as individuals per ception that
rating is not a reflection of good 'boss management' rather it
is performance focused.
References
Aryee. S, Budhwar P & Chen, Z X (2002). "Trust as a
Mediator of the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Work
Outcomes: Test of a Social Exchange Model", Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(3): 267-85.
Axelrod. E L, Handfield-Jones. H & Welsh, T A (2001), "War
for Talent, Part Two", The McKinsey Quarterly, (2): 9-12.
Ashton, C & Morton, L (2005), "Managing Talent for
Competitive Advantage", Human Resources Strategic Review, 4(5):
28-31.
Bandura, A (1977). "Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of
Behavioral Change", Psychological Review, 84(2): 191-215.
Biswas. S; Giri, V N & Srivastava, KBL. (2006). "Examining
the Role of HR Practices in Improving Individual Performance and
Organizational Effectiveness", Management and Labor Studies, 31(2):
111-33.
Breaugh, J A (2004), "Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using
Feedback for Performance Improvement", Academy of Management
Review, 29(3): 512-14.
Bhatnagar, J & Sharma, A (2005), "The Indian Perspective
of Strategic HR Roles and Organizational Learning Capability",
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(8): 1711-39.
Bhatnagar, J (2007), "Predictors of Organizational Commitment
in India: Strategic HR Roles, Psychological Empowerment and
Organizational Learning Capability", International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(10): 1782-1811.
Coyle-Shapiro, J A M & Shore, L M (2007), "The Employee
Organization Relationship: Where Do We Go from Here?" Human
Resource Management Review, 17(2): 166-79.
Cappelli, P (2000), "A Market Driven Approach to Retaining
Talent", Harvard Business Review, 78(1): 103-11.
Chambers, E G, Foulon, M, Handfield-Jones, H, Hankin, S M &
Michaels, E G (1998), "The War for Talents", The McKinsey
Quarterly, (3): 44-57.
Huselid, M A; Beatty, R W & Becker, B E (2005), "A Player
or a Position? The Strategic Logic of Workforce Management",
Harvard Business Review, 83(Dec): 110-17.
Jalal Sarker. S, Crossman, A & Chinmeteepituck, P (2003),
"The Relationships of Age and Length of Service with Job
Satisfaction: an Examination of Hotel Employees in Thailand",
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(7): 745-58.
Jawahar, I M (2006). "Correlates of Satisfaction with
Performance Appraisal Feedback", Journal of Labor Research, 27(2):
213-34.
Jawahar, I (2007), "The Influence of Perceptions of Fairness
on Performance Appraisal Reactions", Journal of Labor Research,
28(4): 735-54.
Kuvaas, B (2006), "Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and
Employee Outcomes: Mediating and Moderating Roles of Work
Motivation", International Journal of Human Resource Management,
17(3): 504-22.
May, D R, Gilson, R L & Harter, L M (2004), "The
Psychological Conditions of Meaningfulness, Safety and Availability and
the Engagement of the Human Spirit at Work", Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 7(1): 11-37
Poortvliet, P M, Janssen, O, Van Y N W & Vliert, E V (2009),
"The Joint Impact of Achievement Goals and Performance Feedback on
Information Giving", Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 31(3):
197-209.
Pfeffer, J (2001), "Fighting the War for Talents is Hazardous
to Your Organization's Health", Organizational Dynamics,
29(4): 548-59.
Rao, S A (2007), "Effectiveness of Performance Management
Systems: An Empirical Study in Indian Companies", International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10): 1812-40.
Rao, T V (2008), "Lessons from Experience: A New Look at
Performance Management Systems", Vikalpa, 33(3): 1-15.
Rao, T V (2011), Hurconomics for Talent Management. New Delhi:
Pearson.
Ready, DA, Conger, J A & Hill, LA (2010), "Are You a High
Potential?" Harvard Business Review, 88(6): 78-84.
Schaufeli, W B & Bakker, A B (2004), "Job Demands, Job
Resources, and Their Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi
Sample Study", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 293-315.
Singh, Anupriya (2013), "Perceptions of Software Professionals
regarding Performance Management Processes", Vikalpa, 38: 3960
Yapp, M (2009), "Measuring the ROI of Talent Management",
Strategic HR Review, 8(4): 5-10.
Arup Roy Chowdhury (E-mail:aruproychow8@gmaiI.com) & MG Jomon
are from XLRI, School of Business & Human Resources, Jamshedpur
831001
Table 1 Guidelines for Competency Rating
Learner Competent Leader
The competency is not The competency is The competency is
fully developed and well developed and is developed in superior
is applied under applied well in fashion and
guidance, complex situations, proficiently
characterized by a characterized by "I practiced. Somebody
feeling "I see an see this competency who can mentor others
effort for displaying being displayed in improving their
these competencies at often". competency level,
times". characterized by a
feeling "Is best in
class".
Table 2 Guideline for KRA Compliance
Learner Competent Leader
Below expected level Meets the set target Much above the
of performance and is and expected level of stretched level of
a cause of concern. performance. There performance. Actual
Such performance may is a fair probability achievement is
have caused stress to of success in the exemplary in the
other team members / actual level sense that the degree
department in meeting attained. Such of difficulty was
the department's achievement helps all very high. Such
goals. other interfaces in achievement stands
meeting their apart.
expected level of
performance.
Table 3 Breakup of Respondents
Talent No. of Survey Q'nnaires No. of Filled Up Survey
Categorization distributed Q'nnaires Received
Pre Test Post Test Pre Test Post Test
Leaders 37 30 30 30
Competent 94 75 75 75
Learners 56 45 45 45
Table 4 Inter Correlations amongst Demographic Characteristics &
Justice Dimensions
Age Gender Tenure Procedural
Justice
Age 1
Gender 0.06 1
Tenure 0.03 0.04 1
Procedural Justice -0.03 0.08 0.05 1
Distributive Justice 0.11 -0.05 0.14 0.71 **
Interactional Justice 0.10 0.08 0.17 * 0.67 **
Distributive Interactional
Justice Justice
Age
Gender
Tenure
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice 1
Interactional Justice 0.51 ** 1
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
Table 5 Inter Correlations amongst Demographic Characteristics
& ndividual Mindset Dimensions
Age Gender Tenure Job
Satisfaction
Age 1
Gender 0.14 1
Tenure 0.39 ** 0.04 1
Job Satisfaction 0.14 0.08 0.08 1
Intention to quit 0.21 ** 0.01 0.01 0.71 **
Job Engagement 0.22 ** 0.05 0.15 * 0.67 **
Intention Job
to quit Engagement
Age
Gender
Tenure
Job Satisfaction
Intention to quit 1
Job Engagement 0.51 ** 1
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
Table 6 Inter-correlations amongst Individual Mindset Dimensions
& Justice Perception Dimensions
Job Intention Work Procedural
Satisfaction to Quit Engagement Justice
Job Satisfaction 1
Intention to Quit 0.58 ** 1
Job Engagement 0.52 ** 0.60 ** 1
Procedural Justice 0.53 ** 0.71 ** 0.55 ** 1
Distributive Justice 0.42 0.55 ** 0.38 ** 0.55 **
Interactional Justice 0.48 ** 0.66 ** 0.51 ** 0.69 **
Distributive Interactional
Satisfaction Justice Justice
Job Satisfaction
Intention to Quit
Job Engagement
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice 1
Interactional Justice 0.59 ** 1
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.0l
Table 7 Procedural Justice Significant Attributors
[beta] t Sig
KRA Setting 0.08 2.04 0.01
Performance Feedback 0.39 8.11 0.00
Appraisee's participation 0.08 2.08 0.01
Aware of organizational 0.19 4.57 0.00
policies/processes
Adjusted F Value Total
R2 Variance
Explained
0.48 105.8 48%
KRA Setting (p<0.00)
Performance Feedback
Appraisee's participation
Aware of organizational
policies/processes
Table 8 Distributive Justice Significant Attributors
[beta] t Sig
Performance Feedback 0.29 5.71 0.00
Aware of organizational 0.24 5.53 0.00
policies/processes
Adjusted F Value Total
R2 Variance
Explained
Performance Feedback 0.28 49.7 28%
Aware of organizational (p<0.00)
policies/processes
Table 9 Interactional Justice Significant Attributors
[beta] t Sig
Performance Feedback 0.42 7.87 0.00
Appraisee's participation 0.09 2.26 0.01
Aware of organizational 0.15 3.41 0.00
policies/processes
Adjusted F Value Total
R2 Variance
Explained
Performance Feedback 0.41 75.9 41%
Appraisee's participation (p<0.00)
Aware of organizational
policies/processes
