Performance appraisal is recognized as a powerful human resource management (HRM) practice. However, its effectiveness depends on how public employees perceive appraisal systems. Based on the Social Exchange Theory, this study aims to empirically explore the impact of the perceived developmental purpose of performance appraisal on a relevant and critical individual attitude in public HRM literature, such as work engagement. Additionally, the study investigates perceived performance appraisal justice as a potential mediator of such a relationship. The analysis of an online survey administered to 1,482 Italian civil servants through a structural equation model shows that perceived developmental appraisal has a positive impact on the work engagement of public employees. This relationship is partially mediated by interactional performance appraisal justice perceptions, while distributive and procedural justice do not significantly affect work engagement. This contribution addresses specific research gaps in the public sector HRM literature. Our results suggest that public organizations can enhance engagement through perceived developmental, interactional, and fair performance appraisal systems.
AdlerP. S.BorysB. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393986
2.
AhmedU.KuraK. M.UmraniW. A.PahiM. H. (2020). Modelling the link between developmental human resource practices and work engagement: The moderation role of service climate. Global Business Review, 21(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919837813
3.
AhmedU.MajidA.ZinM. (2016). HR moderating HR: Critical link between developmental HR practices and work engagement in a moderated model. Management Review: An International Journal, 11(2), 4–22.
4.
AryeeS.BudhwarP. S.ChenZ. 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), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.138
5.
BalducciC.FraccaroliF.SchaufeliW. B. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9): A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 143.
6.
BannerD. K.CookeR. A. (1984). Ethical dilemmas in performance appraisal. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 961–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00381756
7.
BarbieriM.MicacchiL.VidèF.ValottiG. (2021). The performance of performance appraisal systems: A theoretical framework for public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211043560
BellèN. (2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance. Public Administration Review, 73, 143–153.
BorstR. T. (2018). Comparing work engagement in people-changing and people-processing service providers: A mediation model with red tape, autonomy, dimensions of PSM, and performance. Public Personnel Management, 47(3), 287–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018770225
12.
BorstR. T.KruyenP. M.LakoC. J.de VriesM. S. (2020). The attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes of work engagement: A comparative meta-analysis across the public, semipublic, and private sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 613–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19840399
13.
BoswellW. R.BoudreauJ. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 283–299.
14.
BoswellW. R.BoudreauJ. W. (2002). Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012872907525
15.
BozemanB. (1993). A theory of government “red tape”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273–303.
16.
BrocknerJ. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness : How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 58–76.
17.
CardyR. L.DobbinsG. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Western Publishing.
18.
ChoY. J.SaiN. (2013). Does organizational justice matter in the federal workplace?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12458126
19.
ChoiS. (2011). Organizational justice and employee work attitudes: The federal case. American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010373275
20.
ClevelandJ. N.MurphyK. R.WilliamsR. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.130
21.
ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386
22.
ColquittJ. A.WessonM. J.PorterC. O. L. H.ConlonD. E.NgK. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
23.
ConwayE.FuN.MonksK.AlfesK.BaileyC. (2016). Demands or resources? The relationship between HR practices, employee engagement, and emotional exhaustion within a hybrid model of employment relations. Human Resource Management, 55, 901–917. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21691
24.
CropanzanoR.MitchellM. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
25.
DaleyD. M. (1992). Performance appraisal in the public sector: Techniques and applications. Abc-clio.
26.
de SchrijverA.DelbekeK.MaesschalckJ.PleysierS. (2010). Fairness perceptions and organizational misbehavior: An empirical study. American Review of Public Administration, 40(6), 691–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010363742
27.
DusterhoffC.CunninghamJ. B.MacGregorJ. N. (2014). The effects of performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a moral judgment perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1634-1
28.
ErdoganB. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12(4), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00070-0
29.
EremencoS. L.CellaD.ArnoldB. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28(2), 212–232.
30.
FarndaleE. (2017). Two-country study of engagement, supervisors and performance appraisal. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 11, 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-07-2015-0105
31.
FletcherL.BaileyC.AlfesK.MaddenA. (2020). Mind the context gap: A critical review of engagement within the public sector and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31, 6–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1674358
32.
GabrisG. T.IhrkeD. M. (2000). Improving employee acceptance toward performance appraisal and merit pay systems: The role of leadership credibility. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X0002000104
33.
GabrisG. T.IhrkeD. M. (2001). Does performance appraisal contribute to heightened levels of employee burnout? The results of one study. Public Personnel Management, 30(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600103000203
34.
GreenbergJ. (1986). Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.340
35.
GreenbergJ. (2004). Stress fairness to fare no stress: Managing workplace stress by promoting organizational justice. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 352–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.003
36.
GuptaV.KumarS. (2013). Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee engagement: A study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451311279410
37.
HajnalG.StaronovaK. (2021). Changing patterns of individual performance appraisal systems for civil service in European Union countries: Toward a developmental or an incentivizing model. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34(7), 748–764. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2021-0051
38.
HarringtonJ. R.LeeJ. H. (2015). What drives perceived fairness of performance appraisal? Exploring the effects of psychological contract fulfillment on employees’ perceived fairness of performance appraisal in U.S. federal agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 214–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014564071
39.
HuberV. L. (1983). An analysis of performance appraisal practices in the public sector: A review and recommendations. Public Personnel Management, 12, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102608301200305
40.
IqbalM. Z.AkbarS.BudhwarP.ShahS. Z. A. (2019). Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Evidence on the utilization criteria. Journal of Business Research, 101, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.035
41.
JacobsenC. BHvitvedJ.AndersenL. B. (2014). Command and motivation: how the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public sector motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 790-806. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12024
42.
JinM. H.McDonaldB. (2017). Understanding employee engagement in the public sector: The role of immediate supervisor, perceived organizational support, and learning opportunities. American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 881–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016643817
43.
KelloughJ. E.LuH. (1993). The paradox of merit pay in the public sector: Persistence of a problematic procedure. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13(2), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X9301300204
44.
KelloughJ. E.NigroL. G. (2002). Pay for performance in Georgia State government: Employee perspectives on GeorgiaGain after 5 years. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22(2), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X0202200206
45.
KimS. E.RubiantyD. (2011). Perceived fairness of performance appraisals in the federal government: Does it matter?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X11428903
46.
KimT.HolzerM. (2016). Public employees and performance appraisal: A study of antecedents to employees’ perception of the process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(1), 31–56.
47.
KimT. Y.LinX. W.LeungK. (2015). A dynamic approach to fairness: Effects of temporal changes of fairness perceptions on job attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9341-6
48.
KuvaasB. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: Mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500521581
49.
KuvaasB. (2008). An exploration of how the employee-organization relationship affects the linkage between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00710.x
50.
LavignaB. (2015). Public service motivation and employee engagement. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 732–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12429
51.
LevitatsZ.Vigoda-GadotE. (2020). Emotionally engaged civil servants: Toward a multilevel theory and multisource analysis in public administration. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(3), 426–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18820938
52.
LevitatsZ.Vigoda-GadotE.VashdiD. R. (2019). Engage them through emotions: Exploring the role of emotional intelligence in public sector engagement. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 841–852.
53.
MarrelliA. F. (2011). Employee engagement and performance management in the federal sector. Performance Improvement, 50, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.20216
54.
MaslachC.SchaufeliW. B.LeiterM. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
55.
MengF.WuJ. (2015). Merit pay fairness, leader-member exchange, and job engagement: Evidence From Mainland China. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12453057
56.
MoneE.EisingerC.GuggenheimK.PriceB.StineC. (2011). Performance management at the wheel: Driving employee engagement in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9
57.
MoonK. K. (2017). Fairness at the organizational level: Examining the effect of organizational justice climate on collective turnover rates and organizational performance. Public Personnel Management, 46(2), 118–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017702610
PalaiologosA.PapazekosP.PanayotopoulouL. (2011). Organizational justice and employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(8), 826–840. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591111168348
60.
PerryJ. L.EngbersT. A.JunS. Y. (2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01939_2.x
61.
PerryJ. L.WiseL. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/976618
62.
QiuM.HuB.XuZ.LiY. (2015). Employees’ psychological ownership and self-efficacy as mediators between performance appraisal purpose and proactive behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 43, 1101–1109. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.7.1101
63.
QuratulainS.KhanA. K.SabharwalM. (2019). Procedural fairness, public service motives, and employee work outcomes: Evidence from Pakistani public service organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(2), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17718029
64.
RobertsG. E. (1992). Linkages between performance appraisal system effectiveness and rater and ratee acceptance. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12(3), 19–41.
65.
RobertsG. E. (1995). Developmental performance appraisal in municipal government: An antidote for a deadly disease?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 15(3), 17–43.
SchaufeliW. B. (2013). What is engagement? In TrussC.AlfesK.DelbridgeR.SchantzA.SoanE. (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 15–35). Routledge.
68.
SchaufeliW. B.BakkerA. B.SalanovaM. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
69.
SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM.González-RomáV.BakkerA. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
70.
SchleicherD. J.BaumannH. M.SullivanD. W.YimJ. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of performance management: A 30-year integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000368
71.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422.
72.
TharenouP. (1995). The impact of a developmental performance appraisal program on employee perceptions in an Australian Federal Agency. Group & Organization Management, 20, 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601195203002
73.
VigodaE. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and implications for the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1742
74.
Vigoda-GadotE.EldorL.SchohatL. M. (2013). Engage them to public service: Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration. American Review of Public Administration, 43(5), 518–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012450943
75.
WenzelA. K.KrauseT. A.VogelD. (2019). Making performance pay work: The impact of transparency, participation, and fairness on controlling perception and intrinsic motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(2), 232–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17715502
