Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Performance appraisal, as a powerful tool for human resource management, has become an important driving force for organizations to achieve sustainability. However, only when employees believe that a performance appraisal is fair can an organization’s performance appraisal truly work and have a positive impact on employees. Hence, based on social exchange theory and social identity theory, we theorized and validated a dual path model to explore the influence of performance appraisal justice on employee job performance through work engagement and organizational identification. Survey data from 404 Chinese employees and their direct supervisors in high-tech enterprises were analyzed using multiple regression and structural equation modeling. Results indicate that performance appraisal justice of employees has a positive impact on their work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance. In addition, both work engagement and organizational identification of employees partly mediated the relationship between performance appraisal justice and their job performance. Our conclusions mean that when employees perceive justice in organizational performance appraisals, they will actively engage in their daily work and truly identify with their organizations, thus improving job performance, which is conducive to the sustainable development of organizations. The limitations and implications for future research and practice are also discussed.

Keywords

performance appraisal justice job performance work engagement organizational identification structural equation modeling

Introduction

As the core of human resource management, performance appraisal has become an integral part of modern management tools for organizations to motivate their employees (Dangol, 2021; Gupta & Kumar, 2012), and it is likely to have an important impact on the realization of organizational performance goals. Many previous scholars have verified that how to effectively improve employee job performance is directly related to organizational performance (Ju et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2019). And among these numerous researches on the influencing factors of employee job performance, the perspective of human resource management practice (e.g., performance appraisal) is gradually becoming the focus of research (Boswell & Boudreau, 2002; Meijerink et al., 2021). Specifically speaking, performance appraisal can directly affect an employee’s work behaviors, such as job satisfaction (Poon, 2004), organizational commitment (Salleh et al., 2013), turnover intention (Kuvaas, 2006), and well-being (Dal Corso et al., 2019). However, the employees are more likely to accept the performance appraisal results only if they believe the performance appraisal of the organization is fair (Gupta & Kumar, 2012; Seljak & Kvas, 2015; Thurston & McNall, 2010). Any appraisal system is useless if employees think that the performance appraisal is unfair (Meijerink et al., 2021; Roberts, 2003). This means that individual employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice determine their acceptance of a performance appraisal and its results, and also directly affect their future work attitude and performance.

Performance appraisal justice refers to the degree of employees’ perception of fairness in the performance appraisal system, process, and results of the organization during the performance appraisal period (Dangol, 2021; Erdogan, 2002; Iqbal et al., 2019). Previous studies have verified it can not only make individuals feel satisfied with the performance appraisal system, process, feedback, and so on (Rana & Singh, 2022; Su et al. 2022), but also further enhance their psychological security, sense of self-worth, organizational commitment, and group status (Kahn, 1990; Meijerink et al., 2021; Seljak & Kvas, 2015). When employees believe that an organizational performance appraisal is fair, they will try to maintain a high level of job performance out of the desire to reward the organization (Siyal et al., 2020). They will also take the initiative to improve the defects found in their work (Dangol, 2021; Salanova et al., 2005), which will eventually lead to the improvement of their job performance. Hence, based on employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice, the present study first attempts to explore the factors affecting employee job performance and expects that employees’ perception of organizational performance appraisal justice is positively related to their job performance. In other words, when employees can perceive justice in the organization’s performance appraisal, job performance in their daily work will be improved.

According to social exchange theory, when employees feel that they are treated fairly by an organization, they tend to show more positive attitudes and behaviors to reward the organization (Emerson, 1976). Work engagement, as a positive working state of employees (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Inam et al., 2021), is likely to be promoted by performance appraisal justice. Specifically, performance appraisal justice can be regarded as the specific application and reflection of organizational justice in the specific context of an organizational performance appraisal (Schleicher et al., 2019). When the employees perceive that the organization’s performance appraisal is fair, they will be more proactive (Rana & Singh, 2022), and have a strong interest in their work (Jyoti & Bhau, 2015), which naturally leads to a higher level of work engagement. In this case, employees usually think that they can deal with various challenges in their daily work, which can help them finish their work faster and more effectively (Dal Corso et al., 2019), and they are more likely to show higher levels of job performance (Truxillo et al., 2012). Hence, the second aim of the present study is to examine the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between performance appraisal justice and employee job performance.

In addition, social identity theory suggests that organizational fairness can promote employees’ identification with their organizations (C. K. Kim et al., 2001), and thus positively affect their work attitude, behavior, and performance (Bednar et al., 2020). Organizational identification is a special form of social identification, which describes the internal relationship between employees and their organizations, as well as the degree of employees’ recognition of their organizations (Koçak & Kerse, 2022; Riketta, 2005). Prior scholars have verified performance appraisal justice as the concrete embodiment of organizational fairness in performance management (Schleicher et al., 2019), which can further enhance the organizational identification of employees (Piccoli et al., 2017). When employees have a high degree of organizational identification, they are more likely to rely on and trust the organization (Chang et al., 2022; Smidts et al., 2001), so they are more willing to contribute their own strength to the organization and take the initiative to improve their job performance (Palaiologos et al., 2011). Therefore, we believe that organizational identification can also mediate the relationship between performance appraisal justice and employee job performance, which is the third aim of this study.

Taken together, the present study attempts to build and validate a dual path model to discuss the influence of performance appraisal justice on employee job performance. Based on social exchange theory and social identity theory, the present study introduces work engagement and organizational identification as mediators to explore the internal processes between performance appraisal justice and job performance. By analyzing the data collected from pairing samples of employees and their direct supervisors at high-tech enterprises operating in a National Hi-Tech Park in Shanghai, China, the present study tests whether those above relationships are also established among Chinese employees. Therefore, the present study contributes to the existing literature that deals with the relationships between performance appraisal justice, job performance, work engagement, and organizational identification, especially in the Chinese culture. In addition, the conclusion of the present study can provide a reference and thinking in relation to how enterprises can continuously stimulate the work engagement and organizational identification of their employees through a fairer and more reasonable performance appraisal system, and thus improve employee job performance.

Review of Literature

Performance Appraisal Justice

Performance appraisal justice refers to the degree of employees’ perception of fairness in the performance appraisal system, process, and results of the organization during the performance appraisal period (Dangol, 2021; Erdogan, 2002; Iqbal et al., 2019). In essence, it is the employees’ individual perception of the justice of the performance appraisal system in a specific organizational context (Elicker et al., 2006; Ju et al., 2021). Many previous studies have pointed out that employees’ perception of performance appraisal justice determines their acceptance of the performance appraisal process and its results, as well as the possible effects of the performance appraisal. For example, Keeping and Levy (2000) argued that performance appraisal justice has always been the most important index to measure the effectiveness of performance management in an organization. This is not only because employees have a high sensitivity to justice (Levy & Williams, 2004; Sarfraz et al., 2021), but also because the results of performance appraisals are often directly linked to the interests of employees in terms of salary and promotion (Su, Lyu et al., 2019; Seljak & Kvas, 2015). In addition, Schleicher et al. (2019) pointed out that employees’ perception of performance appraisal justice would inevitably affect their work behaviors and attitudes.

For the specific content of performance appraisal justice, Greenberg (1986) first proposed that employees’ perception of performance appraisal justice includes two dimensions: procedural justice and distributive justice. Colquitt (2001) further enriched the structure of performance appraisal justice, dividing it into four dimensions, namely procedural justice, distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Procedural justice refers to employees’ perception of organization’s performance appraisal criteria and the fairness of procedures used by supervisors in the performance appraisal process (Erdogan, 2002; Nagin & Telep, 2020). Distributive justice refers to the fairness of performance appraisal results perceived by employees, that is, whether employees think their performance evaluation results are commensurate with their actual work efforts relative to their colleagues (Colquitt, 2001; Hu & Han, 2021). Interpersonal justice refers to the degree of politeness, dignity, and respect given to employees by their superiors when executing procedures or determining outcomes, and informational justice emphasizes the completeness and accuracy of all information about performance appraisals perceived by subordinates (Greenberg, 1993; Gupta & Kumar, 2012). Combined with the practical characteristics of performance appraisals and the main points of previous research, the present study will continue the four-dimensional division of performance appraisal justice. For the measurement of Chinese employees’ perception of performance appraisal justice, the present study applies Gupta and Kumar’s (2012) 17 item scale, which is also divided into four sub-scales: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice.

Performance Appraisal Justice and Job Performance

For a long time, performance research has been at the core of human resource management and organizational behavior research (Awan et al., 2020; Zacher et al., 2010). The job performance of employees refers to what they do during their daily work and the actions they take to achieve organizational goals (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015), which can drive the entire sustainable economy (Jyoti & Bhau, 2015). It is essentially a multi-dimensional, target-related behavioral structure that can be assessed (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Meijerink et al., 2021). From the existing literature, it is apparent that employee job performance depends on their own characteristics and external situational factors. The research on employees’ own characteristics mainly emphasizes the different influences of employees’ individual characteristics on their job performance, such as personality characteristics (Barrick & Mount, 1991; W. Kim et al., 2013), motivation (Van Iddekinge et al., 2018), and ability (Kaasa, 2009). Those studies of external situational factors mainly emphasize the influence of the internal and external environments of an organization on employees’ job performance. For example, Robbins and DeNisi (1994) constructed a model of the factors that affect the job performance of employees from the aspects of individual and organizational environments. Swalhi et al. (2017) verified the positive influence of employees’ perceptions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interactive) on their job performance. Consistent with their study, the present study infers that performance appraisal justice, as a specific form of organizational justice in performance appraisals, can promote employee job performance.

Equity theory states that if employees perceive an unfair ratio of input to return, they will reduce their input (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978; Rana & Singh, 2022). In other words, when employees think that they are treated fairly by the organization, they will reward the organization with positive work attitudes and behavior (Ucar et al., 2021; Uddin et al., 2019). On the contrary, employees will adopt negative attitudes and behaviors to respond to unequal treatment (Colquitt, 2001). Many previous studies (e.g., Greenberg, 1993; Nagin & Telep, 2020; Schleicher et al., 2019; Steensma & Visser, 2007; Swalhi et al., 2017) have also verified that employees’ perceptions of procedural justice, distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice in organizational performance appraisals have a significant influence on positive work-related attitudes and behaviors. Besides, Roberts (2003) argued that the performance appraisal, as a complex and controversial human resource technique, is closely related to the formation of an organizational atmosphere. A fair performance appraisal system can create an organizational atmosphere of full trust, support, care, and understanding (Long et al., 2013; Rubin & Edwards, 2020). The employees who work in such an organizational atmosphere tend to work harder (Tsai et al., 2015) and show higher levels of job performance. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Performance appraisal justice is positively related to employee job performance.

Mediating Role of Work Engagement

The concept of work engagement was first proposed by Kahn (1990), as “the individuals’ willingness to actively engage in their work roles from physical, cognition and emotion in their daily work.”W. Schaufeli (2012) argued that work engagement is essentially the state in which employees put themselves into their work, and it is a positive attitude toward work, characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (p. 74). Vitality refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience at work, as well as the willingness to work hard and persevere even in the face of difficulties (Rich et al., 2010). Dedication refers to high degrees of involvement in the work, experiencing feelings of meaning, passion, inspiration, pride, and challenge (Uddin et al., 2019). Absorption is featured by being fully concentrated and happily absorbed in an individual’s work, whereby one feels that time passes quickly and it is not easy to separate from the work (Inam et al., 2021). Since then, with the development of positive psychology, work engagement, as a positive work attitude, has gradually become a new research hotspot in the field of psychology, human resource management, and organization behavior (e.g., Bakker, 2022; Gupta & Kumar, 2012; Kaya & Karatepe, 2020; Shuck, 2011).

Both Kahn (1990) and W. Schaufeli (2012) have verified that organizational justice perceived by individuals from the external situation is an important factor affecting their work engagement. Masterson et al. (2000) also confirmed that organizational justice perceptions of employees have a significant influence on their work engagement. As an important part of organizational justice, performance appraisal justice can be regarded as the specific application and reflection of organizational justice in the specific context of organizational performance appraisals (Inam et al., 2021; Schleicher et al., 2019). When the employees perceive that the organization’s performance appraisal is fair, they will be more engaged in their work. In addition, based on the principle of reciprocity (Palaiologos et al., 2011), employees tend to show a more positive attitude when they perceive fairness within the organization, because they believe that if they work hard, the company will know and reward them (Dal Corso et al., 2019; Saks, 2006). In other words, when treated fairly in organizational performance appraisals, employees will respond through positive work attitudes and behavior, such as work engagement (Fong & Ng, 2012). Therefore, employees’ perception of performance appraisal justice will greatly increase their work engagement, and the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Performance appraisal justice is positively related to work engagement.

In recent years, many empirical studies have found that work engagement plays a significant mediating role between job performance and its antecedent variables (Kaya & Karatepe, 2020; W. Kim et al., 2013). Based on these studies and the above discussions on the relationships among performance appraisal justice, work engagement, and job performance, the present study speculates that the relationship between performance appraisal justice and job performance may be mediated by work engagement. To be specific, when employees perceive performance appraisal justice in the organization, they will experience more interest and enthusiasm at work, which urges them to focus more on their own work, and devote themselves to the completion of work tasks and the realization of performance goals, so as to achieve better job performance. Besides, social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976) emphasizes that when employees feel that they are treated fairly by the organization, they tend to show more positive attitudes and behaviors to reward the organization. When employees feel satisfaction with the organizational performance appraisal, they can perceive the organization’s recognition of their previous efforts (Levy & Williams, 2004; O’Neill et al., 2011). This sense of recognition greatly increases their work enthusiasm and motivates them to serve the organization more actively, resulting in better job performance (Nagin & Telep, 2020). Based on the above analysis, we speculate that the relationship between performance appraisal justice and job performance is mediated by work engagement. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Work engagement mediates the relationship between performance appraisal justice and employee job performance.

Mediating Role of Organizational Identification

As a concept derived from social identity theory, organizational identification was introduced into the research field of organizational behavior by Ashforth and Mael (1989) and defined as “the individual’s identification of themselves as a certain part of the organization.” It is a special form of social identification, which describes the internal relationship between employees and their organizations, and the degrees of employees’ recognition of their organizations (Koçak & Kerse, 2022; Riketta, 2005). Simply put, when an employee feels that he or she belongs to an organization, he or she will identify with the organization (Ashforth et al., 2008). Then, he or she is prone to being dependent on the organization, more willing to actively contribute to the organization, maintain the image of the organization, and ultimately improve the performance of the organization (Zhao et al., 2019).

Employees usually define themselves in terms of how the organization treats them (C. K. Kim et al., 2001), which means that how the organization treats its employees determines their organizational identification (Riketta, 2005). Tyler (1999) argued that if employees can feel the recognition and appreciation of the organization, they will feel that they are respected in the organization, which greatly promotes their identification with the organization. Steensma and Visser (2007) verified that when employees perceive that performance appraisals are fair, they can generate a sense of being treated fairly, as well as recognition and appreciation from the organization. Hence, as an indicator of how employees are treated by their organizations in the performance management system (Rubin & Edwards, 2020), performance appraisal justice is likely to have an important impact on their organizational identification, and the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Performance appraisal justice is positively related to organizational identification.

According to social identity theory, individuals with high organizational identification are more likely to respond to organizational justice, and their behavior is more likely to be consistent with organizational goals and behavior (C. K. Kim et al., 2001; Postmes et al., 2019), which means employees with high organizational identification are more likely to perceive organizational justice (Ashforth et al., 2008), and therefore prefer to engage themselves in the organization. Even at the stake of losing their own interests, they may make decisions that best suit the interests of the organization (Graham et al., 2020; Smidts et al., 2001). In addition, as an organizational phenomenon caused by organizational performance appraisals, performance appraisal justice is also possibly affected by the degree of employees’ identification with organizations. If the performance appraisal of the organization is fair and easily accepted by the employees, then the employees show stronger organizational identification, resulting in better job performance. Therefore, we believe that employees who perceive performance appraisal justice from their organization usually have higher organizational identification, are more likely to be stimulated by performance appraisal justice, and are more willing to improve their performance. Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5: Organizational identification mediates the relationship between performance appraisal justice and employee job performance.

According to previous literature, the overall research model of the present study is shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1.

Theoretical model.

Methods

Samples and Procedures

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between Chinese employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice and their outcomes. Hence, the sample comprised Chinese employees from high-tech enterprises operating in a National Hi-Tech Park in Shanghai, China. With the approval of management departments, we selected 500 Chinese employees and their direct supervisors as the respondents of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: Chinese employees and their immediate supervisors. Chinese employees were asked to provide their perceptions of performance appraisal justice, work engagement, organizational identification, and demographic information. The direct supervisors were invited to rate their respective subordinates’ job performances. After discarding the mismatched and fuzzy samples, we finally obtained 404 dyads of valid questionnaires, including 404 Chinese employees and 98 supervisors, with a response rate of 80.8%.

Among the 404 valid respondents, 72.5% were male and 27.5% were female. Given the slightly skewed gender ratio in the final sample, we conducted T tests for male and female Chinese employees. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between male and female Chinese employee data on the main research variables; that is, the gender imbalance did not affect the validity of the study results. In terms of age, the majority of the respondents were in the post-1985 and post-1990 generations, accounting for 75.5%. For education level, respondents with bachelor’s degrees or above took up 88.4%, and 23.5% of the respondents had master’s or doctoral degrees. In terms of tenures, the distribution was relatively average, with 26.5% of employees under 3 years, 30.4% in 3 to 5 years, 22.3% in 5 to 10 years, and 20.8% over 10 years.

Measures

Performance appraisal justice: The 17-item scale revised by Gupta and Kumar (2012) was used to measure Chinese employees’ perception of performance appraisal justice in the present study. This was adapted from Colquitt’s study (2001) and has been validated in countries with different cultural backgrounds (Dal Corso et al., 2019), including China. A sample item is “The results of performance appraisal are consistent with what I have accomplished.” All the 17 items of Chinese employees’ perception of performance appraisal justice were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”). The Cronbach alpha for this section in the present study was .934.

Work engagement: For the measurement of Chinese employee’s work engagement, the present study used the nine-item scale developed and verified by W. B. Schaufeli et al. (2006) in 10 different countries, including Spain, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and so on. This scale also has been validated with Chinese samples by Fong and Ng (2012). A sample item is “When I get up in the morning, I want to go to work.” All the nine items of Chinese employees’ work engagement were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”). The Cronbach alpha for this section in the present study was .899.

Organizational identification: For the measurement of Chinese employees’ organizational identification, the five-item scale developed by Smidts et al. (2001) was used in the present study. Many prior researches in the Chinese context have shown that it has high reliability and validity for Chinese samples (Fong & Ng, 2012; Ye et al., 2019). A sample item is “I am honored to be a member of my organization.” All the nine items of Chinese employees’ organizational identification were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”). The Cronbach alpha for this section in the present study was .824.

Job performance: For the measurement of Chinese employees’ job performance, the present study used the four-item scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). The direct supervisors of Chinese employees were invited to assess their subordinates’ job performance. This scale had also been verified with Chinese samples (Holley et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2016). A sample item is “This employee can perform the duties specified in the job description.” All the four items of Chinese employees’ job performance were also scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”). The Cronbach alpha for this section in the present study was .904.

Control variables: Previous studies (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Chang et al., 2022; Nangoy et al., 2020; Rich et al., 2010; Su et al., 2019) have illustrated the significant influence of employees’ demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, educational level, and work tenure on their job performance. Hence, this study selected the above five variables as control variables. Specifically, consistent with these previous studies, the present study encoded males as “1” and females as “2.” Age was divided into five levels: under 20 was coded as “1”; 21 to 30 was coded as “2”; 31 to 40 was coded as “3”; 41 to 50 coded as “4”; and over 51 was coded as “5.” Educational level was divided into four levels: college graduate degree or low was coded as “1”; Bachelor’s degree was coded as “2”; Master’s degree was coded as “3”; and PhD degree was coded as “4.” Work tenure was also divided into four levels: no more than 3 years was coded as “1”; 3–5 years was coded as “2”; 5 to 10 years was coded as “3”; 10 years and above was coded as “4.”

Data Analysis

Prior to testing the five hypothesized relationships, we first performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to check the discriminant validity of the theoretical model. Consistent with previous studies, five indices, which include χ²/df, root mean square error (RMSEA), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were selected to assess the overall model fit. The specific ideal evaluation criteria are as follows: χ²/df should be less than 3.00, TLI and CFI should be more than 0.90, RMSEA and SRMR should be less than 0.08 (Fan et al., 2019; Ucar et al., 2021). We also calculated the correlation coefficients between four core variables to preliminarily test the correlation among them.

Then, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were performed to initially test the five hypotheses. According to Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) suggestions, we applied a two-step procedure to initially analyze the direct and indirect influence of performance appraisal justice on job performance. For the direct effect, we used the hierarchical regression analysis to test the direct influence of performance appraisal justice on work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance. For the mediating effect, we adopted Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedures to check the mediating roles of work engagement and organizational identification.

Finally, we performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to further verify the whole dual path model and further test the five proposed hypotheses (Fan et al., 2019; Ucar et al., 2021; Uddin et al., 2020). To be specific, the final SEM results verified the theoretical model had good fit indices: χ²/df = 2.294 < 3.00, RMSEA = 0.066 < 0.800, CFI = 0.932 > 0.900, TLI = 0.928 > 0.900, and SRMR = 0.061 < 0.800. Hence, the path coefficient of the model reflects the causal relationship between the potential variables reasonably and effectively and can be used to test the proposed hypotheses.

Results

Validity Test

At first, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the measurement model in the present study. In the four-factor model, performance appraisal justice, work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance were loaded on a single factor. In the three-factor model, work engagement and organizational identification were loaded on one factor. In the two-factor model, performance appraisal justice, work engagement, and organizational identification were loaded on one factor. In the single-factor model, all four variables were loaded on a single factor. The results of CFA are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comparison of the Measurement Models.

Models	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
Four-factor model: PAJ, WE, OI, JP	607.70	203	2.994	0.074	0.920	0.909	0.068
Three-factor model: PAJ, WE + OI, JP	997.56	206	4.843	0.103	0.844	0.825	0.084
Two-factor model: PAJ + WE + OI, JP	1463.32	208	7.035	0.129	0.753	0.726	0.086
Signal-factor model: PAJ + WE + OI + JP	2109.64	209	10.094	0.158	0.626	0.587	0.118

Note. PAJ = performance appraisal justice; WE = work engagement; OI = organizational identification; JP = job performance. Deal model fit indicators are χ²/df < 3, RMSEA < 0.080, CFI > 0.900, TLI > 0.900, SRMR < 0.080.

As shown in Table 1, the four-factor model exhibited a better fit than the other three models. The specific fit indexes included χ² = 607.70, df = 203, χ²/df = 2.994 < 3.00, RMSEA = 0.074 < 0.800, CFI = 0.920 > 0.900, TLI = 0.909 > 0.900, and SRMR = 0.068 < 0.800 (Fan et al., 2019; Ucar et al., 2021). Then, we used Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) to further test the measurement model (Haque et al., 2019; Jyoti & Bhau, 2015). The results showed that the CR values for four constructs were respectively 0.949, 0.889, 0.895, 0.956, which all exceeded the required threshold values of 0.70, and the AVE values for four constructs were respectively 0.861, 0.619, 0.588, 0.687, all exceeding the required threshold values of 0.50, too. Hence, the validity and reliability of the underlying four core variables in the present study were very good.

Descriptive Analysis

The means, descriptive statistics and correlations for performance appraisal justice, job performance, work engagement, and organizational identification are shown in Table 2. The results indicated that Chinese employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice were significantly and positively related to their work engagement (r = .566, p < .01), organizational identification (r = .583, p < .01), and job performance (r = .521, p < .01). Similarly, work engagement (r = .548, p < .01) and organizational identification (r = .377, p < .01) of Chinese employees were also significantly and positively related to their job performance. Taken together, all four variables in the present study were moderately significant, and basically consistent with results reported in the relevant literature, which were suitable for further analysis.

Table 2.

Results of Correlation Analyses.

Models	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Performance appraisal justice	3.709	0.466	1
2. Work engagement	3.417	0.688	.566**	1
3. Organizational identification	3.917	0.421	.583**	.506**	1
4. Job performance	3.184	1.133	.521**	.548**	.377**	1

Note. SD = standard deviations.

p < .01.

Inspection of Direct Effect

Table 3 reports the regression results of performance appraisal justice, work engagement, and organizational identification on job performance. For the direct influence of performance appraisal justice on work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance, the results of Models 1 to 6 were able to provide initial support. After control over Chinese employees’ gender, age, education, and tenure, Models 5 and 6 indicated that performance appraisal justice was positively related to job performance (β = .518, p < .001), therefore, Hypothesis 1 was initially verified. Similarly, Models 1 and 2 indicated that after control over Chinese employees’ demographics, performance appraisal justice was positive related to work engagement (β = .568, p < .001), hence, Hypothesis 2 was also initially verified. In addition, Models 3 and 4 indicated that performance appraisal justice was also positively associated with organizational identification (β = .584, p < .001). Hence, Hypothesis 4 was initially supported.

Table 3.

Results of Regression Analysis.

	WE		OI		Job performance
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8
Gender	−0.068	−0.012	0.115*	0.058	−0.093	−0.042	−0.037	−0.036
Age	0.023	0.042	0.111*	0.230**	0.076	0.093	0.078	0.090
Education	0.218**	0.337**	0.055	0.074	0.144**	0.227**	0.340***	0.095
Tenure	0.105*	0.187**	0.027	0.022	0.054	−0.050	0.150*	−0.054
PAJ		0.568***		0.583***		0.518***	0.307***	0.345***
WE							0.372***
OI								0.218***
R ²	.105	.324	.130	.594	.118	.528	.610	.535
ΔR²		.219		.364		.410	.082	.007
F	7.47**	34.43***	6.54**	10.79***	6.27**	27.76***	35.36***	32.94***

Note. PAJ = performance appraisal justice; WE = work engagement; OI = organizational identification.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Inspection of Mediating Effect

For testing the mediating roles of work engagement and organizational identification in the relationship between performance appraisal justice on job performance, we followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) suggestions and a three-step procedure via regression analyses was applied in the section. We first tested the direct effect of performance appraisal justice on job performance, then tested the direct effects of performance appraisal justice on work engagement and organizational identification. Finally, we tested the joint effects of performance appraisal justice and work engagement on job performance, and the joint effects of performance appraisal justice and organizational identification, to see whether the effect of performance appraisal justice on job performance had changed. The results are also shown in Table 3.

As shown by the results for Model 7 in Table 3, work engagement was positive related to job performance (β = .372, p < .001), and the indirect influence of performance appraisal justice on job performance was also significant (β = .307, p < .001), indicating that work engagement could partially mediate the influence of performance appraisal justice on job performance. Hence Hypothesis 3 is initially verified. Analogously, Model 8 in Table 3 indicates that organizational identification was positively related to job performance (β = .218, p < .001), and the indirect influence of performance appraisal justice on job performance was also significant (β = .345, p < .001), indicating that organizational identification also could partially mediate the influence of performance appraisal justice on job performance. Hence Hypothesis 5 is initially verified.

Inspection of Whole Model

Regarding the verification of the whole theoretical model, we employed SEMs (Jyoti & Bhau, 2015; Ucar et al., 2021) to analyze the relationship between performance appraisal justice, work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance. The standardized path coefficients for the whole model are reported in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Results of structural equation modeling (SEM).

As shown in Figure 2, the standardized path coefficient between performance appraisal justice and job performance was 0.478 (p < .001), which means that Chinese employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice exerted a significant and positive influence on their job performance, therefore, Hypothesis 1 was assumed to be fully supported. In addition, the standardized path coefficient between performance appraisal justice and work engagement was 0.512 (p < .001), providing evidence that Chinese employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice also exerted a significant and positive influence on their work engagement. Hypothesis 2 is therefore fully supported. In addition, the standardized path coefficient between performance appraisal justice and organizational identification was 0.492 (p < .001). This means that Chinese employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice exerted a significant and positive influence on their organizational identification as well, which therefore fully supports Hypothesis 4.

For estimating the indirect effect of performance appraisal justice on job performance via work engagement and organizational identification, Figure 2 indicates that performance appraisal justice exerted significant and positive effects on job performance (β = .478, p < .001), and work engagement also exerted a significant and positive effect on job performance (β = .339, p < .001), which verified that work engagement played a partly mediating role in the relationship between performance appraisal justice and job performance. Hence, Hypothesis 3 is assumed to be fully supported. Additionally, organizational identification exerted a significant and positive effect on job performance (β = .296, p < .001), and this suggested that organizational identification also played a partly mediating role in the relationship between performance appraisal justice and job performance, which is fully supportive of Hypothesis 5.

Discussion

Many previous studies (e.g., Jabareen, 2008; Jyoti & Bhau, 2015; Lee et al., 2019; Nangoy et al., 2020) have proved that how to continuously improve employee performance is an important task for organizations to achieve development goals. From the perspective of performance management, the present study mainly attempted to examine whether employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice affect their job performance. Meanwhile, based on social exchange theory and social identity theory, the present study introduced work engagement and organizational identification as mediators into the relationship between performance appraisal justice and employee job performance. To maintain consistency, this study proposed five hypotheses to discuss in detail the relationship between performance appraisal justice, work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance.

In order to verify the above proposed model and hypotheses, the present study collected matching data from 404 Chinese employees and their direct supervisors at high-tech enterprises operating in a National Hi-Tech Park in Shanghai, China. Empirical analyses of these pairing data indicated that performance appraisal justice has significant and positive effects on the work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance of employees. Both work engagement and organizational identification of employees could partly mediate the relationship between their perception of performance appraisal justice and job performance. This means that when employees believe that an organizational performance appraisal is fair, they will have a higher level of organizational identification and actively engage in their daily work, thus generating better job performance.

Theoretical Contributions

The present study designed and verified a dual model to explore the relationship among performance appraisal justice, work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance. The results confirmed a positive relationship between employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal justice, work engagement, organizational identification, and job performance. One possible reason for these results may be that when employees feel they are being treated fairly by the organization, they reward the organization with positive work attitudes and behaviors (Awan et al., 2020; Jawahar, 2017). Besides, the ultimate purpose of organizational performance appraisal is to help employees identify their strengths and weaknesses through the appraisal results (Dangol, 2021; Kuvaas, 2006), improve their working ability, and finally promote their job performance. In doing so, employees’ perception of performance appraisal justice, as a specific form of organizational justice (Rubin & Edwards, 2020; Zacher et al., 2010), is also positively related to their job performance. To our knowledge, the present study is the first research to explore the direct relationship between performance appraisal justice and employee job performance, which further enriches the research on the influencing factors of job performance (e.g., Erdogan, 2002; Jyoti & Bhau, 2015; Lyu et al., 2022) and highlights the importance of organizational performance appraisal justice.

In addition, based on social exchange theory and social identify theory, the present study confirmed that work engagement and organizational identification of employees are two important mediators in the relationship between performance appraisal justice and their job performance. Both work engagement and organizational identification can partly mediate the influence of performance appraisal justice on employee job performance. These two findings suggest that when employees perceive that an organizational performance appraisal is fair, they will have higher organizational identification, actively engage in their daily work, and thus improve their job performance. These conclusions fill the research gap to a certain extent as previous research (Ju et al., 2021; Palaiologos et al., 2011), has not explored the internal mechanism for how performance appraisal justice affects employee job performance, especially in a Chinese context. Meanwhile, the two results of the present study are also basically consistent with previous literature, that is, work engagement (e.g., Kaya & Karatepe, 2020; Saks, 2006; W. Schaufeli, 2012) and organizational identification (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Rubin & Edwards, 2020; Zhao et al., 2019) play mediating roles in the relationship between other related variables. Therefore, these two conclusions can further enrich the relevant academic research on the mediating roles of work engagement and organizational identification.

Practical Implications

Given the important role of performance appraisal justice in organization management, the organization’s performance management should first ensure justice (Erdogan, 2002; Hu & Han, 2021). In practice, organizations and their managers should use objective indicators as far as possible to evaluate each employee, accurately measure the contribution and effort of each employee (Erdogan, 2002; Gupta & Kumar, 2012; Nagin & Telep, 2020), and ultimately effectively improve employees’ sense of distributive justice. Meanwhile, in the specific performance appraisal process, managers should fully respect and care for each employee (Iqbal et al., 2019; Lin & Kellough, 2019), fully communicate with each employee, and improve their sense of interactive justice (including interpersonal justice and informational justice). In addition, the organization should strive to standardize the system and procedure of performance appraisal (Rana & Singh, 2022; Rubin & Edwards, 2020), ensure that all the appraisal rules are equal, and improve employees’ sense of procedural justice.

However, work engagement and organizational identification of employees are not only affected by their perceptions of performance appraisal justice, but also have significant and positive impacts on their job performance. This means that in the same performance appraisal practice, the differences in employees’ needs will lead to differences in their work engagement (Kaya & Karatepe, 2020; Roberts, 2003) and organizational identification (Riketta, 2005; Zhao et al., 2019), and finally lead to differences in their job performance. Accordingly, organizations and their managers should pay attention to the key roles of work engagement (Bakker, 2022; Saks, 2006) and organizational identification (Ashforth et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2017) in promoting job performance among their employees. For example, organizations and their managers should strive to create an open, just, fair, and free organizational atmosphere for employees to improve their perception of justice in performance appraisals (Sarfraz et al., 2021; Veldhoven et al., 2017), and finally promote their work engagement and organizational identification, leading to improvement in their job performance.

Limitations and Future Research

There are certain limitations in the present study due to confined research resources. First, the present study collected the sample data only from high-tech enterprises in a National Hi-Tech Park in China, which may limit the generalizability and external validity of our conclusions. Therefore, further scholars can replicate the theoretical model of the present study using different types of enterprises. In addition, China is a country with a collectivist culture (Chang et al., 2022; Su, Lin, & Ding, 2019), and Chinese employees may react differently to performance appraisal justice compared with Western employees. Hence, the present study advises further scholars to take cultural backgrounds into account when constructing theoretical models.

Second, in order to control the common method variance (Tehseen et al., 2017), the present study invited supervisors to evaluate the job performance of their direct subordinates. To some extent, this measurement of employee job performance depends on the subjective evaluation of supervisors, which may lead to additional problems of measurement validity and causal logic. Therefore, we advise future research to use employee self-reported assessment methods at different times to measure employee job performance. At the same time, future scholars can also use quasi-experimental methods to further improve the accuracy of the conclusions.

Finally, the present study only investigated the mediating effects of work engagement and organizational identification in the relationship between performance appraisal justice on job performance, and there might be other factors that can mediate this relationship, such as organizational commitment (Salleh et al., 2013; Steensma & Visser, 2007), trust (Holley et al., 2019), and empowerment (Hassan et al., 2019). Meanwhile, the boundary conditions of the proposed model have not been discussed in this paper. Therefore, future research can go further by incorporating other mediating variables or moderating variables, such as employee motivation (Steensma & Visser, 2007), individual personality (O’Neill et al., 2011), and sustainable HRM practices (Tzabbar et al., 2017) to explore the internal mechanism and boundary conditions of these relationships (Qi & Ming-Xia, 2014; Yeh & Huan 2017).

Conclusions

The present study used questionnaires and empirical analyses to explore the influence of performance appraisal justice on employee job performance, as well as the mediating roles of work engagement and organizational identification among Chinese employees. Specific conclusions are as follows: (1) Employees’ performance appraisal justice can facilitate their job performance. This finding shows that employees will be motivated to promote their job performance when they perceive the organization’s performance appraisal mechanism is fair and objective. (2) Work engagement and organizational identification of employees both play intermediation roles in the relationship between performance appraisal justice and their job performance. These two findings explain the extent to which work engagement and organizational identification affect the direct influence of performance appraisal justice on employee job performance, and when employees perceive their organization’s performance appraisal is fair, they will have higher organizational identification, actively engage in their daily work, and thus produce more job performances. To sum up, the conclusions of the present study can provide several valuable guidance for organizations and its managers to continuously stimulate the work engagement and organizational identification and promote job performance of employees by building a fair performance appraisal system, and ultimately achieve organizational success, and sustainability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Bei Lyu

Weilin Su

References

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Corley

K. G.

(2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Awan

S. H.

Habib

Shoaib Akhtar

Naveed

(2020). Effectiveness of performance management system for employee performance through engagement. Sage Open, 10(4), 2158244020969383.

Bakker

A. B.

(2022). The social psychology of work engagement: State of the field. Career Development International, 27(1), 36–53.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

Bednar

J. S.

Galvin

B. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

Hafermalz

(2020). Putting identification in motion: A dynamic view of organizational identification. Organization Science, 31(1), 200–222.

Borman

W. C.

Motowidlo

S. J.

(1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109.

10.

Boswell

W. R.

Boudreau

J. W.

(2002). Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3), 391–412.

11.

Campbell

J. P.

Wiernik

B. M.

(2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 47–74.

12.

Carrell

M. R.

Dittrich

J. E.

(1978). Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. The Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 202–210.

13.

Chang

T. W.

Chen

Y. S.

Lin

C. Y.

(2022). The myth of organizational change process: A study of uniting organizational identity, promoting organizational performance, and member behavior. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221079891.

14.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

15.

Dal Corso

De Carlo

Carluccio

Girardi

Falco

(2019). An opportunity to grow or a label? Performance appraisal justice and performance appraisal satisfaction to increase teachers’ well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2361–2361.

16.

Dangol

(2021). Role of performance appraisal system and its impact on employees motivation. Quantitative Economics and Management Studies, 2(1), 13–26.

17.

Elicker

J. D.

Levy

P. E.

Hall

R. J.

(2006). The role of leader-member exchange in the performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32(4), 531–551.

18.

Emerson

R. M.

(1976). Social exchange theory. The Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362.

19.

Erdogan

(2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12(4), 555–578.

20.

Fan

Mahmood

Uddin

M. A.

(2019). Supportive Chinese supervisor, innovative international students: A social exchange theory perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(1), 101–115.

21.

Fong

T. C.

S. M.

(2012). Measuring engagement at work: Validation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 391–397.

22.

Graham

K. A.

Resick

C. J.

Margolis

J. A.

Shao

Hargis

M. B.

Kiker

J. D.

(2020). Egoistic norms, organizational identification, and the perceived ethicality of unethical pro-organizational behavior: A moral maturation perspective. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 73(9), 1249–1277.

23.

Greenberg

(1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342.

24.

Greenberg

(1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 81–103.

25.

Gupta

Kumar

(2012). Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee engagement: A study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), 61–78.

26.

Haque

A. T.

Uddin

M. A.

Easmin

Sohel

S. M.

(2019). Job satisfaction and citizenship behavior: A mediating effect of organizational commitment. Organizacija, 52(3), 236–249.

27.

Hassan

Park

Raadschelders

J. C. N.

(2019). Taking a closer look at the Empowerment-Performance relationship: Evidence from law enforcement organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 427–438.

28.

Holley

E. C.

Avey

J. B.

(2019). The impact of leader trustworthiness on employee voice and performance in China. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 179–189.

29.

Han

(2021). Distributive justice: Investigating the impact of resource focus and resource valence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(2), 225–252.

30.

Inam

J. A.

Zafar

Khan

Sheikh

A. A.

Najam

(2021). Fostering creativity and work engagement through perceived organizational support: The interactive role of stressors. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211046937.

31.

Iqbal

M. Z.

Akbar

Budhwar

Shah

S. Z. A.

(2019). Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Evidence on the utilization criteria. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 101, 285–299.

32.

Jabareen

(2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment Development and Sustainability, 10(2), 179–192.

33.

Jawahar

I. M.

(2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions. Journal of Labor Research, 28(4), 735–754.

34.

Lee

Park

Yoon

S. W.

(2021). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between learning organization and organizational performance and employee attitudes: Using the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire. Human Resource Development Review, 20(2), 207–251.

35.

Jyoti

Bhau

(2015). Impact of transformational leadership on job performance: mediating role of leader–member exchange and relational identification. Sage Open, 15(4), 1–13.

36.

Kaasa

(2009). Effects of different dimensions of social capital on innovative activity: Evidence from Europe at the regional level. Technovation, 29(3), 218–233.

37.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

38.

Kaya

Karatepe

O. M.

(2020). Does servant leadership better explain work engagement, career satisfaction and adaptive performance than authentic leadership? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(6), 2075–2095.

39.

Keeping

L. M.

Levy

P. E.

(2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708–723.

40.

Kim

C. K.

Han

Park

S. B.

(2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. The Japanese Psychological Research, 43(4), 195–206.

41.

Kim

Kolb

J. A.

Kim

(2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 248–276.

42.

Koçak

Kerse

(2022). How perceived organizational obstruction influences job satisfaction: The roles of interactional justice and organizational identification. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221079933.

43.

Kuvaas

(2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: Mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3), 504–522.

44.

Lee

M. C. C.

Idris

M. A.

Tuckey

(2019). Supervisory coaching and performance feedback as mediators of the relationships between leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover intention. Human Resource Development International, 22(3), 257–282.

45.

Levy

P. E.

Williams

J. R.

(2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881–905.

46.

Lin

Y. C.

Kellough

J. E.

(2019). Performance appraisal problems in the public sector: Examining supervisors’ perceptions. Public Personnel Management, 48(2), 179–202.

47.

Long

C. S.

Kowang

T. O.

Ismail

W. K. W.

Rasid

S. Z. A.

(2013). A review on performance appraisal system: An ineffective and destructive practice. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(7), 887–891.

48.

Lyu

Liao

X. Y.

Yang

Y. C.

(2022). Relationships between temporal leadership, Transactive memory systems and team innovation performance. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 25–432559. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S380989

49.

Liu

Wang

(2016). Job security and work performance in Chinese employees: The mediating role of organisational identification. Texila International Journal of Psychology, 51(2), 123–129.

50.

Masterson

S. S.

Lewis

Goldman

B. M.

Taylor

M. S.

(2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748.

51.

Meijerink

J. G.

Beijer

S. E.

Bos-Nehles

A. C.

(2021). A meta-analysis of mediating mechanisms between employee reports of human resource management and employee performance: Different pathways for descriptive and evaluative reports? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(2), 394–442.

52.

Nagin

D. S.

Telep

C. W.

(2020). Procedural justice and legal compliance: A revisionist perspective. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 761–786.

53.

Nangoy

Mursitama

T. N.

Setiadi

N. J.

Pradipto

Y. D.

(2020). Creating sustainable performance in the fourth industrial revolution era: The effect of employee’s work well-being on job performance. Management Science Letters, 10(5), 1037–1042.

54.

O’Neill

T. A.

Lewis

R. J.

Carswell

J. J.

(2011). Employee personality, justice perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 595–600.

55.

Palaiologos

Papazekos

Panayotopoulou

(2011). Organizational justice and employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(8), 826–840.

56.

Piccoli

Callea

Urbini

Chirumbolo

Ingusci

De Witte

(2017). Job insecurity and performance: The mediating role of organizational identification. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1508–1522.

57.

Poon

J. M. L.

(2004). Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Personnel Review, 33(3), 322–334.

58.

Postmes

Wichmann

L. J.

van Valkengoed

A. M.

van der Hoef

(2019). Social identification and depression: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 110–126.

59.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

60.

Ming-Xia

(2014). Ethical leadership, organizational identification and employee voice: Examining moderated mediation process in the Chinese insurance industry. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20(2), 231–248.

61.

Rana

Singh

(2022). Performance appraisal justice and affective commitment: Examining the moderating role of age and gender. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 24–46.

62.

Rich

B. L.

Lepine

J. A.

Crawford

E. R.

(2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.

63.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358–384.

64.

Robbins

T. L.

DeNisi

A. S.

(1994). A closer look at interpersonal affect as a distinct influence on cognitive processing in performance evaluations. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 341–353.

65.

Roberts

G. E.

(2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 32(1), 89–98.

66.

Rubin

E. V.

Edwards

(2020). The performance of performance appraisal systems: understanding the linkage between appraisal structure and appraisal discrimination complaints. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(15), 1938–1957.

67.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

68.

Salanova

Agut

Peiró

J. M.

(2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227.

69.

Salleh

Amin

Muda

Halim

M. A. S. A.

(2013). Fairness of performance appraisal and organizational commitment. Asian Social Science, 9(2), 121–128.

70.

Sarfraz

Hussain

Syed

Rehman

Rollah Bin Abdul Wahab

Salihuddin

(2021). Work environment and training transfer intentions: Does organizational justice moderate their relationship? Sage Open, 11(4), 21582440211046941.

71.

Schaufeli

(2012). Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go? Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(1), 3–10.

72.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.

73.

Schleicher

D. J.

Baumann

H. M.

Sullivan

D. W.

Yim

(2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of performance management: A 30-year integrative conceptual review. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 851–887.

74.

Seljak

Kvas

(2015). Three-stage data envelopment analysis as a tool for nurse leader performance appraisals: Case study. Sage Open, 5(1), 2158244015577666.

75.

Shuck

(2011). Integrative literature review: Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304–328.

76.

Siyal

Xin

Peng

Siyal

A. W.

Ahmed

(2020). Why do high-performance human resource practices matter for employee outcomes in public sector universities? The mediating role of person–organization Fit Mechanism. Sage Open, 10(3), 1–12.

77.

Smidts

Pruyn

A. T. H.

Van Riel

C. B. M.

(2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062.

78.

Steensma

Visser

(2007). Procedural justice and supervisors’ personal power bases: Effects on employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal sessions, commitment, and motivation. Journal of Collective Negotiations, 31(2), 101–118.

79.

Lin

Ding

(2019). The influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1581.

80.

W. L.

Lyu

Liu

Y. J.

Chen

Fan

J. Y.

(2019). Supervisor developmental feedback and employee performance: The roles of feedback-seeking and political skill. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 29(5), 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2019.1665879

81.

W.L.

Lyu

London

(2022).Relationships between developmental feedback, intrinsic motivation, and creative personality and performance. Psihologija, 55(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI200616037S

82.

Swalhi

Zgoulli

Hofaidhllaoui

(2017). The influence of organizational justice on job performance. The Journal of Management Development, 36(4), 542–559.

83.

Tehseen

Ramayah

Sajilan

(2017). Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of available methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2), 142–168.

84.

Thurston

P. W.

McNall

(2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201–228.

85.

Truxillo

D. M.

Cadiz

D. M.

Rineer

J. R.

Zaniboni

Fraccaroli

(2012). A lifespan perspective on job design: Fitting the job and the worker to promote job satisfaction, engagement, and performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), 340–360.

86.

Tsai

C. Y.

Horng

J. S.

Liu

C. H.

D. C.

(2015). Work environment and atmosphere: The role of organizational support in the creativity performance of tourism and hospitality organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 26–35.

87.

Tyler

T. R.

(1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 201–246.

88.

Tzabbar

Tzafrir

Baruch

(2017). A bridge over troubled water: Replication, integration, and extension of the relationship between HRM practices and organizational performance using moderating meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 134–148.

89.

Ucar

A. C.

Alpkan

Elci

(2021). The effects of person–organization fit and turnover intention on employees’ creative behavior: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Sage Open, 11(4), 1–15.

90.

Uddin

M. A.

Mahmood

Fan

(2019). Why individual employee engagement matters for team performance? Mediating effects of employee commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. Team Performance Management, 25(1/2), 47–68.

91.

Uddin

M. A.

Priyankara

H. P. R.

Mahmood

(2020). Does a creative identity encourage innovative behaviour? Evidence from knowledge-intensive IT service firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(5), 877–894.

92.

Van Dyne

LePine

J. A.

(1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.

93.

Van Iddekinge

C. H.

Aguinis

Mackey

J. D.

DeOrtentiis

P. S.

(2018). A meta-analysis of the interactive, additive, and relative effects of cognitive ability and motivation on performance. Journal of Management, 44(1), 249–279.

94.

Veldhoven

M. V.

Dorenbosch

Breugelmans

Voorde

(2017). Exploring the relationship between job quality, performance management, and career initiative: A two-level, two-actor study. Sage Open, 7, 1–15.

95.

Wang

H. J.

Demerouti

Le Blanc

(2017). Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: The moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100(6), 185–195.

96.

Yeh

S. S.

Huan

T. C.

(2017). Assessing the impact of work environment factors on employee creative performance of fine-dining restaurants. Tourism Management, 58(C), 119–131.

97.

Zhu

Deng

(2019). Negative workplace gossip and service outcomes: An explanation from social identity theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 159–168.

98.

Zacher

Heusner

Schmitz

Zwierzanska

M. M.

Frese

(2010). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity, and work performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 374–386.

99.

Zhao

Liu

(2019). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 834–848.

The Influence of Performance Appraisal Justice on Employee Job Performance: A Dual Path Model

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Review of Literature

Performance Appraisal Justice

Performance Appraisal Justice and Job Performance

Mediating Role of Work Engagement

Mediating Role of Organizational Identification

Methods

Samples and Procedures

Measures

Data Analysis

Results

Validity Test

Descriptive Analysis

Inspection of Direct Effect

Inspection of Mediating Effect

Inspection of Whole Model

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References