How to Encourage Employees’ Acceptance of Performance Appraisal Systems in Korean Nonprofit Organizations? An Empirical Exploration of the Influence of Performance Monitoring Systems and Organizational Culture
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2018
How to Encourage Employees’ Acceptance of Performance Appraisal Systems in Korean Nonprofit Organizations? An Empirical Exploration of the Influence of Performance Monitoring Systems and Organizational Culture
As the consequences of the raise in the roles that nonprofit organizations play in providing public services, there is a need to generate solutions for the financial scandals involving nonprofit organizations that have ensued. Nonprofit organizations receive government funding as “third-party agents” of the government to deliver the meaningful outcomes required on performance measures. Many nonprofit organizations utilize performance appraisal systems to improve their accountability and demonstrate organizational trustworthiness. This study employs confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical multiple regression to examine data from the 2013 Korean Nonprofit Sector Survey. The results are as follows: (a) The current human resources and organizational monitoring systems in Korea play the most significant role in increasing employees’ acceptance of performance appraisal systems (APAS); (b) Korean nonprofit organizations’ new public management (NPM) culture is positively associated with APAS; and (c) the type of organizational culture (NPM or Confucian) moderates the relationship between performance monitoring systems (PMS) and APAS among nonprofit organization employees.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
AmirkhanyanA. A.KimH. J.LambrightK. T. (2008). Faith-based assumptions about performance: Does church affiliation matter for service quality and access?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 490-521.
3.
AyersR. S. (2015). Aligning individual and organizational performance: Goal alignment in federal government agency performance appraisal programs. Public Personnel Management, 44, 169-191.
4.
BermanE.WangX. (2000). Performance measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60, 409-420.
5.
BlauP. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
6.
CarmanJ. G. (2008). Nonprofits, funders, and evaluation: Accountability in action. The American Review of Public Administration, 39, 374-390.
7.
CawleyB. D.KeepingL. M.LevyP. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633.
8.
ChoY. J.LeeJ. W. (2012). Performance management and trust in supervisors. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32, 236-259.
9.
DaleyD. M. (2007). If a tree falls in the forest: The effect of grievances on employee perceptions of performance appraisal, efficacy, and job satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27, 281-296.
10.
DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D.DonaldsonL. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
11.
DickeL. A. (2002). Ensuring accountability in human services contracting: Can stewardship theory fill the bill?The American Review of Public Administration, 32, 455-470.
12.
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, 265-273.
13.
ErdoganB. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555-578.
14.
FerreiraA.OtleyD. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20, 263-282.
GellesE. (2000). The role of the economic sector in the provision of care to trusting clients. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10, 233-249.
17.
GreerC. R. (2001). Strategy and HRs: A general managerial approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18.
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, 214-238.
19.
HedgeJ. W.TeachoutM. S. (2000). Exploring the concept of acceptability as a criterion for evaluating performance measures. Group & Organization Management, 25, 22-44.
20.
HendersonD. A.ChaseB. W.WoodsonB. M. (2002). Performance measures for nonprofit organizations: How one organization developed a way to collect meaningful information. Journal of Accountancy, 193(1), 63-68.
21.
IraniZ. (2008). Information systems evaluation: what does it mean?Construction innovation, 8(2), 88-91.
22.
JainP. S. (1996). Managing credit for the rural poor: Lessons from the Grameen Bank. World Development, 24, 79-89.
23.
KaplanR. S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 353-370.
24.
KimM. Y.ParkS. M. (2013). Probing the antecedents and consequences of acceptance of performance appraisal system: With a focus on NGO in Korea. Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 23(4), 87-126.
25.
KimM. Y.ParkS. M. (2017). Antecedents and outcomes of acceptance of performance appraisal system in Korean non-profit organizations. Public Management Review, 19, 479-500.
26.
KimS. E.RubiantyD. (2011). Perceived fairness of performance appraisals in the federal government: Does it matter?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 329-348.
27.
KimT.HolzerM. (2016). Public employees and performance appraisal a study of antecedents to employees’ perception of the process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36, 31-56.
28.
ManiB. G. (2002). Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 31, 141-159.
29.
MilgromP. R.RobertsJ. D. (1992). Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
MoussaviF.AshbaughD. L. (1995). Perceptual effects of participative, goal-oriented performance appraisal: A field study in public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 331-344.
31.
MurphyK. R.ClevelandJ. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
OhS. S.LewisG. B. (2009). Can performance appraisal systems inspire intrinsically motivated employees?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29, 158-167.
33.
O’ReillyC. A.ChatmanJ.CaldwellD. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516.
34.
ParkS. M. (2010). The effects of personnel reform systems on Georgia state employees’ attitudes: An empirical analysis from a principal–agent theoretical perspective. Public Management Review, 12, 403-437.
35.
ParkS. M.JoaquinM. E. (2012). Of alternating waves and shifting shores: The configuration of reform values in the US federal bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 514-536.
36.
ParkS. M.MiaoQ.KimM. Y. (2015). The role of leadership behaviors for enhancing organizational effectiveness in the Chinese public sector. International Review of Public Administration, 20, 153-176.
37.
ParkS. M.ParkH. J.RyuE. Y. (2013). Determinants of positive job attitude and behaviour in the Asian work context: Evidence from Korean central government agencies. Public Management Review, 15, 1154-1184.
38.
RahmanS. A. (2006). Attitudes of Malaysian teachers toward a performance-appraisal system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 3031-3042.
39.
ReinkeS. J. (2003). Does the form really matter? Leadership, trust, and acceptance of the performance appraisal process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23, 23-37.
40.
RobertsG. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 32, 89-98.
41.
RubinE. V. (2011, June). Appraising performance appraisal systems in the federal government: A literature review, preliminary findings, and prospects for future research. Presented at the Public Management Research Conference. New York, NY: Syracuse University.
SchaufeliW. B.BakkerA. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.
44.
SchaufeliW. B.TarisT. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In Dordrecht (Ed.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 43-68). The Netherlands: Springer.
45.
SonW. I.ParkT. K. (2008). A study on private donation in Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Finance.
46.
StetsJ. E.BurkeP. J. (2003). A sociological approach to self and identity. In Handbook of self and identity (pp. 128-152).
47.
SundaramurthyC.LewisM. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28, 397-415.
48.
Van SlykeD. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 157-187.
49.
WordJ.ParkS. M. (2015). The new public service? Empirical research on job choice motivation in the nonprofit sector. Personnel Review, 44, 91-118.
50.
WyszomirskiM. J. (2002). Revealing the implicit. In FlynnP.HodgkinsonVA. (Eds.), Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector (pp. 199-216). Springer.
