International Journal of

Homepage: http://ijmres.pk/
Management Research Vol 10, No 1, 2020 March, PP. 87-97
and Emerging Sciences E-ISSN: 2313-7738, ISSN: 2223-5604

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

PROCESS REACTION: A STUDY OF TELECOM SECTOR EMPLOYEES OF
ISLAMABAD
1
Shaza Mahar, 2Dr. Muhammad Wasim Akram, 3Dr. Zeshan Anwar,
and 4Dr. Muhammad Shahid Nawaz
1
Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Malaysia,
1
Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, FMAS, University of Sialkot, Sialkot.
*
Corresponding Email: shaza.mahar1@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, FMAS, University of Sialkot, Sialkot.
Email: mr.wasim08@hotmail.com
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, FMAS, University of Sialkot, Sialkot.
Email: zeshananwar58@gmail.com
4
Assistant Professor, Islamia University Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Email: dr.Shahid@iub.edu.pk

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: The present study scrutinizes the relationship among organizational context (job
Received: 02 Mar 2019 resource adequacy, co-worker relationship and organizational communication)
Revised: 10 Aug 2019 and performance evaluation process reaction through moderation of procedural
Accepted: 02 Jan 2020 justice in the telecom sector of Islamabad, Pakistan. The cross-sectional survey
Available Online: 02 Mar 2020
is conducted through adaptation of structured questionnaire as a primary source
Keywords: of data collection. A structured questionnaire was floated among 192 employees
Job resource adequacy, co- working in telecom sector. The study expands on applicable research in this
worker relationship and region and stretches out the research in the Pakistani context. To test the
organizational communication, hypotheses, multivariate analysis, descriptive statistics, correlation, factor
Performance evaluation process analysis and linear regression is used to analyze the impact, Structured Equation
reaction, procedural justice. Modeling (SEM) is used to identify multiple relationship effects. The structural
model was assessed by using Smart PLS 2.0. The study reveals that reactions
JEL Classification: to performance evaluation process are positively and significant associated with
O11, J35 the independent variables, job resource adequacy, organizational
communication and co-worker relationship.
© 2020 The authors, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0

1. INTRODUCTION
The performance appraisal process, having significant impact upon employees, has become a powerful institution
in the work setting. Worldwide, competitive associations rely on the uniqueness of their human capital and the
frameworks for overseeing HR viably and productively to increase upper hands. Execution assessment is a standout
amongst the hugest human resources practices in organizations due to its critical linkages with hiring the best pool of
candidate, training, compensation, and other employment practices. (Ferris et al., 2008). As indicated by Ingraham
and Jacobson (2001), more than 90% of extensive associations employ some execution assessment framework
whereas, in government sector 25% of employees require yearly performance evaluations that reflects lower attention
towards performance evaluation process. Responses to feedback are dared to show general framework manageability
(Bernardin and Beatty, 1984), and to impact future occupation execution (Kluger and Denisi, 1996) and in addition
organizational demeanors and employment attitudes (Taylor et al., 1984). The present study fills a gap in
comprehension of representative reactions towards performance evaluation forms discovered discernment, the trade
between what happens in an authoritative domain including organizational communication adequacy, coworker
relationship, job resource adequacy and a cognitive framework of individuals (Elsbach et. al, 2016). Low-quality
performance evaluation experiences are associated with decreased employment fulfillment, weaker organizational
commitment, and enlarged goals to quit (Brown et al., 2010). In this way, worker's provide positive response towards
performance evaluation remains a wanted segment of performance management frameworks (Boswell & Boudreau;
2002).
In this new era, the demand for employee appraisal systems is increasing in both public and private sectors.
Performance appraisal usually includes ‘evaluating the performance of managers, subordinates, peers, supervisors,
and even workers themselves based on the judgments and opinions (Jackson & Schuler 2015). Studies conducted by

87
Mahar et al. Impact of Organizational Context on Performance Evaluation . . .

previous scholars have mainly focused the developed countries like USA, but no study has been conducted in
developing countries like Pakistan. So, this examination will investigate responses to performance evaluation frames
as understandings by observing the relationship between key essentials of individual patterns around an organizational
domain, course of action for evaluation, and these responses in corporate division.
Research Question
• Is there any influence of job resource adequacy on Performance evaluation process reaction?
• Is there any influence of workplace communication on Performance evaluation process reaction?
• Is there any influence of co-worker relationship on Performance evaluation process reaction?
• Is there any influence of workplace communication on Performance evaluation process reaction through
moderation of procedural justice?
• Is there any influence of job resource adequacy on Performance evaluation process reaction through
moderation of procedural justice?
• Is there any influence of co-worker relationship on Performance evaluation process reaction through
moderation of procedural justice?
Research Objectives
• To examine the influence of job resource adequacy on Performance evaluation process reaction.
• To examine the impact of workplace communication on Performance evaluation process reaction.
• To examine the influence of co-worker relationship on Performance evaluation process reaction.
• To examine the impact of workplace communication on Performance evaluation process reaction through
moderation of procedural justice.
• To examine the influence of job resource adequacy on Performance evaluation process reaction through
moderation of procedural justice.
• To examine the influence of co-worker relationship on Performance evaluation process reaction through
moderation of procedural justice.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Performance evaluation process reaction and job resource adequacy
Job resource adequacy portrayed as the extent to which individuals have the strategies accessible to them in their
prompt work circumstance to use with their significant capacities and inspiration to perform business related objectives
(Bacharach and Bamberger, 1995; Villanova and Roman, 1993). Consistently limited in the negative and called
"situational goals," work assets have been found to impact activity (Howell et al., 1986), motivation (Peters and
O'Connor, 1980), work execution (Gilboa et al., 2008), and participation (Prasad and Akhilesh, 2002). At the end,
deficient employment assets may restrain the impact of social support at work on affective commitment, when job
resource adequacy is high, individuals orchestrate their imperativeness toward gaining fancied results (Peters and
O'Connor, 1980). Performance evaluation process reaction affected by a worker's cognitive preparation. Employee
reactions inside of an affiliation are typically characterize into four types: motivation, satisfaction, responsibility, work
engagement, or commitment. Job resource adequacy is the extent to which people have the sufficient resources in
hand to accomplish work related objectives. Assets required by people to perform their tasks may incorporate
equipment and tools, materials, offices, support services, space, and ample time to complete a task. Rousseau and
Aube (2010) recommend that the level of impact of supervisor and coworker supports on affective commitment
depend upon the adequacy of job resources and the positivity of surrounding conditions.
Emmerik, Bakker and Euwema (2009) examined the relationship between occupation requests and assets from
one viewpoint, and delegates' appraisals of definitive change. Results demonstrate that passionate demands, yet not
workload, are adversely identified with more good assessments of hierarchical change. Concerning resources, results
demonstrate that backing from the boss, job control, and open doors for expert advancement is connected with more
ideal assessments of authoritative change. According to Fuller, Marler, & Hester, (2006) defined job resource
adequacy as desired assets by a people in an organization to perform their tasks, duties and obligation these may
incorporate; tools and instruments, materials, space, support services, offices, and time. In this manner, access to assets
flags the association's trust that assets will be utilized dependably (i.e. trust in the individual underlies access to assets),
and additionally the desire that people will take part in gainful conduct. Martinez-Tur, Peiro & Ramos (2005) portray
as unmistakable or physical authoritative impediments that likewise limit performance. Comprise of breakdowns in
innovation and absence of material assets (e.g. work materials, instruments and hardware, the physical environment).
Technical imperatives are exceptionally helpful in foreseeing consumer loyalty with administration associations.

88
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(1) 2020, 87-97

Performance evaluation process reaction and organizational communication adequacy

Organizational communication adequacy is a characteristic of the association's psychosomatic surroundings,
which incorporates timely flow of information both up and down in a chain of command and correspondence channels.
Communication adequacy includes timely flow of information both upward and downward in hierarchy and workers
understand communication channels. An institution that supports open communication may incorporate segments, for
instance, flyers, online networking, dialog sheets, and town lobby get-togethers also known as town-hall meetings.
Such a workplace develops obligation through correspondence and supports people against employment stressors
(Laabs, 1998; Sutton and Kahn, 1987). Interestingly, inadequate correspondence prompts part push, part strife and
vulnerability, and low quality relationship among administrators and people (Day et al., 1998; Farr-Wharton and
Brunetto, 2007; Senatra, 1980). The least conversation that does occur is generally between manager and subordinate
within organization will result into dissatisfaction with evaluations Voice, a portion of an association's atmosphere, is
the demonstration of allowing individuals who have a stake in a choice to present data pertinent to it (Korsgaard and
Roberson; 1995).
According to Mayfield and Mayfield (2011), the effective input for learning in organizations explores that the
correspondence of compelling pioneer is most imperative at all levels in this context since top pioneers produce
organizational vision, mid-level management translates and transfers this vision, and immediate boss feedback is most
persuasive with representative. As indicated by Verbos (2014), communication adequacy adds to representative's
social perceptions and to a general authoritative example. Organizational communication incorporates sharing of a
data, basic leadership, coordination and inspiration (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2001)).
According to Jung (2014) found that critical messages proposed by employees are ignore or distorted simply
because the communication method is inappropriate. In addition, attributes of the voice message, voice supplier, and
the circumstances in which voice was being passed on have been found to impact reactions by voice beneficiaries
asserted that supervisor’s reactions to representative voice depend on the substance of voice. Thus, by helping
employees to develop appropriate communication skills for effective change-oriented interactions, which are based
on mutual understanding and politeness, managers may be able to encourage improvement of the organization as a
whole. Then again, organizational supervisors additionally may need to consider the approaches to better oversee
work environment correspondence. The discoveries of the examination recommend that basic messages proposed by
representatives might be disregarded or bended just in light of the fact that the specialized technique is unseemly.
Accordingly, by helping workers to create fitting relational abilities for viable change-arranged communications,
which are especially taking into account common comprehension and amiability, chiefs might have the capacity to
energize change of the association overall.
Performance evaluation process reaction and co-worker relationship
Co-worker relationship focused on environment that individual experiencing positive interpersonal interaction
with their co-workers in their work. In other words, an open and supportive environment helps employee to work in a
secure place. Anitha J. (2013) indicated significant effect on worker engagement and at last to representative
execution. Steady and trusting interpersonal connections additionally a strong bunch, advance agent engagement. An
open and relentless environment is key for agents to feel safe in the workplace Enduring circumstances grant people
to examine and to endeavor new things and even fail without trepidation of the outcomes. May, Gilson & Harter
(2004) found that associations in the workplace altogether influenced weightiness, one of the fragments of
engagement. People who have compensating interpersonal co-operations with their co-workers likewise ought to
encounter more noteworthy significance in their work. Brown, Hyatt & Benson, (2010) examine the part of low quality
performance evaluation on three human resource management results (work fulfillment, hierarchical duty and aim to
stop).
Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) examination proposed to enhance comprehension of variability in work part
exhibitions has concentrated on illustrative ideas that stress moderately contract parts of worker's selves. Work
fulfillment is advanced through positive view of employment attributes, managers, and colleagues and is likewise
impacted by contrasts in individual identity. Coworker support alludes to the level of help approved by work
accomplices (Liao, Joshi, and Chuang, 2004). The backing from colleagues fuses the procurement of minding,
substantial guide, and data (Ducharme and Martin; 2000, Parris; 2003). The support gave by immediate supervisors
and coworkers may grow representatives' solace inside the association by satisfying prerequisites for esteem,
endorsement and association (Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe, 2003).In this manner, representatives have a
emotionally satisfying work experience and, with time, they add to an enthusiastic connection to their utilizing
association.

89
Mahar et al. Impact of Organizational Context on Performance Evaluation . . .

Subsequently, as indicated by empirical study displayed by (Rousseau and Aube; 2010) states that the
relationship between colleague support and full of feeling responsibility are unite in performance evaluation process
reactions. Research conducted by Chiaburu & Harrison (2008) states that people might create exchange relationships
with their immediate boss that are not quite the same as those they involvement with their coworkers. According to
Ng & Sorenson (2008) examined the coordinating a portion of sex introduction, residency, and work sort in the
support–attitude relationship and hypothetical model presents to conjecturing relationships among perceived
organizational support, and work attitudes. As far as model presented in this research focuses on variables,
concentrates on the work mentalities of occupation fulfillment, emotional duty, and turnover aim. Work fulfillment is
a positive passionate state coming about because of great work experience.
Moderating role of procedural justice
Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures used to make decisions (Colquitt &
Greenberg, 2003; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). One defining element of procedural justice is providing individuals with
voice in making decisions that affect them (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Leventhal (1980) proposed that fair procedures
also include, for instance, bias suppression rather than decisions based on preconceptions; accuracy in terms of
reflecting all available, relevant information; and correctability in light of employee input. In the context of
performance appraisals, procedural justice pertains to the apparent fairness of the procedures by which an individual’s
performance is evaluated (Greenberg, 1986). The strong employee reactions to perceived procedural injustices
outlined in the opening paragraph, especially in the highly socioemotionally and economically salient context of
performance evaluations (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995), has inspired theory and interventions aimed at improving the
procedural fairness with which performance appraisals are conducted in organizations.
In a pioneering study, Greenberg (1987) reasoned and showed that a manager keeping detailed records facilitates
the extent to which employees perceive that their performance appraisals accurately reflect their actual work
behaviors. Empirical support has been provided by Folger et al.’s (1992) due process model. Specifically, a field
experiment by Taylor et al. (1995) examined employee reactions to a performance appraisal system delivered in
accordance with Folger et al.’s due process principles. The employees assigned to the due process condition received
lower performance evaluations than those in the control condition, they nonetheless displayed more favorable
reactions—specifically, to the perceived system fairness, appraisal accuracy, attitudes toward the system, evaluations
of managers, and intentions to remain with the organization (Taylor et al., 1995).
Several subsequent studies (e.g., Cole & Latham, 1997; Greenberg, 2001; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996, 1997) have
also demonstrated that methods such as explaining procedural justice principles, followed by activities including
facilitated case analyses and role-plays, can improve managers’ procedural justice. In contrast to this substantial stream
of research, as well as the emerging literature on individual differences in employees’ procedural justice sensitivity
(e.g., Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006; Kamdar, McAllister, & Turban, 2006; Scott & Colquitt, 2007), only one
published study has examined the dispositional characteristics of managers that are associated with their perceived
procedural justice. Specifically, Mayer et al. (2007) examined whether leader personality, operationalized using the
five-factor model (FFM) of personality, predicts the organizational justice climate within leaders’ departments. They
found that managers’ Agreeableness and Conscientiousness positively predicted, while Neuroticism negatively
predicted, procedural justice climate. On observing that the observed effects are “relatively small,” however, Mayer
et al. (2007: 954) noted that “the broad dimensions of the FFM may not be the most useful individual differences to
examine when studying organizational justice” and recommended that future studies examine the role of dispositions
other than those comprising the FFM. In accordance with this suggestion, we next outline the nature of implicit person
theory (IPT), followed by theory and research pertaining to why we believe managers’ IPTs might influence the degree
of procedural justice they are perceived as exhibiting.
Conceptual framework
To identify the impact of determinants of organization on performance evaluation process reaction, following
model has been develop for our study:

90
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(1) 2020, 87-97

Procedural justice

Job Resource Adequacy

Organizational communication Performance Evaluation

adequacy Process Reactions

Co-worker Relationship

Fig. 1. Development of Conceptual framework

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Population of the present study were the employees of the banking sector of Pakistan. The size of the study
included employees working at telecom sector in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The purpose of choosing managerial
cadre was to ensure that researcher receive genuine responses and the respondents have sufficient qualification and
experience so that they may fill the questionnaire honestly and with complete understanding. Convenience sampling
has been used by keeping in view the fact that employees of organizations of Rawalpindi and Islamabad were
conveniently approachable. Structured questionnaire was used as an instrument for data collection. The questionnaire
was distributed among the employees of telecom sector in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Content and face validity were
ensured with the help of professional experts, instrument was modified in line with their recommendations. The
objective of content validity is to examine as to what extent items were covering all dimensions of a particular variable
and to make sure that items were developed in a way that all respondents can read and understand them without any
problem (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). Based on the recommendations of the experts, certain items were excluded. The
revised and final questionnaire was then distributed among the participants for pilot testing with a covering note
explaining the purpose of the research.
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Table 1. Assessment of descriptive statistics
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Male 78 40.6 40.6
Gender
Female 114 59.4 59.4
Graduate 96 50.0 50.0
Education
Post-graduate 96 50.0 50.0
Less than 1 year 48 25.0 25.0
Tenure 1-5 years 96 50.0 50.0
More than 5 years 48 25.0 25.0
Single 36 18.8 18.8
Marital Status
Married 155 80.7 80.7

The first demographic dimension was Gender, which was sub-categorized into Male and Female population. Out
of total 192 survey respondents, 78 were male which constituted 40.6% of respondents and 114 were female, which
constituted 59.4% of respondents. Hence majority of respondents were female. The second survey dimension was
education. As it turned out that 93 respondents had an graduate degree, which constituted 50% respondents and 93
had a post graduate qualification, which made up 50% respondents. Third survey dimension in terms of demographics
was Experience which included respondents with less than 1 year experience, between 1-5 years, and more than 5
years in all. Amongst them, 48 had less than 1 year experience constituting 25% respondents; 96 had an experience
between 1-5 years and constituted 50% survey respondents which turned out to be highest number; 48 had an
experience of more than 5 years, which constituted 25% survey respondents. So majority of the respondents belonged

91
Mahar et al. Impact of Organizational Context on Performance Evaluation . . .

to the 1-5 years’ experience. Fourth demographic survey dimension was marital status which consisted of single,
married.31respondents belonged to the single, which made up 18.8% respondents, and 155 belonged to the married,
making up 80.7% respondents. So the majority of the respondents were single.
Assessment of the measurement model
In model evaluation, the measurement model was undertaking to insure the model validity and reliability. Based
on partial least square structural equation modeling, the assessment of measurement model was examined by using
SmartPLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2005). To determine the measurement model convergent validity, discriminant validity
and reliability of the measurement of construct have been examined
Table 2. Construct reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and AVE of all the latent variables
Construct Items Loadings Cronbach's alpha Composite reliability Average variance extracted
communication CA1 0.949857 0.737122 0.830959 0.643634
adequacy
CA2 0.418936
CA3 0.923669

Co-worker CRQ1 0.914354 0.841793 0.888359 0.617052

relationship
CRQ2 0.676565
CRQ3 0.707364
CRQ4 0.841211
CRQ5 0.763856

job resource JRA1 0.862776 0.968003 0.973548 0.840487

adequacy
JRA2 0.884753
JRA3 0.879346
JRA4 0.96211
JRA5 0.957535
JRA6 0.971201
JRA7 0.892875

performance PER1 0.916228 0.909982 0.931717 0.668015

evaluation reaction
PER2 0.602202
PER3 0.916228
PER4 0.916228
PER5 0.557899
PER6 0.878338
PER7 0.843983
PJ3 0.889038 0.732245 0.805408 0.514352
procedural justice
PJ4 0.609256
PJ5 0.697795
PJ6 0.639458

Before determining the convergent validity, the researcher examined loading and cross loadings of all items of
the variables to point out any problem which serve as a pre requisite for measurement model. As argues by Hair et al.
(2014), convergent validity is obtained when the factor loading of all the items higher than 0.5 and no loading of any
item from other construct have higher loading. Regarding this study concerned out of 37 items 35 items have their
loading above than 0.5 as shown Table 2, which also demonstrated Cronbachs alpha, composite reliability and average

92
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(1) 2020, 87-97

variance extracted (AVE) values of all constructs. The composite reliability should be accepted at least 0.70 and AVE
should be at 0.50 (Fornell&Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2014). As shown in the Table 2, all the constructs have high
reliability and their average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than cut off point of 0.50 which is indication of
reliability of the measurement model. This study calculated Cronbachs Alpha to find out internal consistency of the
data. According to (George &Mallery, 2003) which provide the rule for deciding the value alpha; “α> 0.9- Excellent,
α< 0.8- Good, α< 0.7- Acceptable. As for as this study concerned Table 2 indicates that all constructs have Cronbachs
Alpha value more than 0.6. So this is the indication of all the variables in the study have good consistency.
Assessment of correlation matrix
Correlation matrix is to assure the external consistency of the model, based on the correlation between the latent
variables the constructs were compared with square root of AVEs. As shown in Table 3 all the correlations between
the constructs are lower than square root averages (AVEs) of which are bolded in diagonal.
Table 3. Correlation matrix
CA CRQ JRA PER PJ
CA 1
CRQ 0.907343 1
JRA 0.039016 0.129901 1
PER 0.82976 0.876409 0.150885 1
PJ 0.837901 0.827685 0.126634 0.732487 1

Assessment of structural model direct relationships

To assess the structural model hypothesis testing with path coefficient and T-value, effect size and predictive
relevance of the model were examined.
4.4.1 Direct hypothesis testing
In PLS, structure model gives inner modeling analysis of the direct relationship among the constructs of the study
and their t-values as for as path coefficients. As argued by Henseler et al. (2009), the path coefficient is the same as
standardized beta coefficient and regression analysis. Where beta values of the coefficient of the regression and t-
values are examined to decide on the significance. Following the rule of thumb by Hair et al., (2014), Bootstrapping
method was performed (with 500 sampling iterations for 192 cases / observations) to obtain beta values of the
coefficient of the regression and t-values which greater than 1.64 is considered to be as significant, which is further
used for making decisions on the purposed hypothesis. Table 4 illustrates that all hypotheses that were supported and
accepted have t-value greater than 1.64 and the hypotheses which are rejected had t-value less than 1.64. It was fully
explained in Table 4 which shows the effect of all constructs on dependent variable career success.
Table 4. Direct hypothesis testing results
Sample Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error T Statistics Findings

CA -> PER 0.244467 0.100066 0.100066 2.453711 Accepted

CRQ -> PER 0.696689 0.099891 0.099891 6.871554 Accepted

JRA -> PER 0.054781 0.037651 0.037651 1.988849 Accepted

Table 5. Moderator hypothesis testing results

Standard
Original Sample Sample Mean Standard Deviation T Statistics Findings
Error
CA * PJ -> PER 2.433273 2.493452 1.078801 1.078801 2.255534 Accepted

CRQ * PJ -> PER 1.236765 1.284855 1.187608 1.187608 1.041391 Rejected

JRA * PJ -> PER 0.839275 0.697877 0.46834 0.46834 1.79202 Accepted

93
Mahar et al. Impact of Organizational Context on Performance Evaluation . . .

Fig. 2. PLS algorithm

To calculate the moderating effect, the researchers run PLS algorithm to obtain the beta coefficients values which
are given in Table 4. Regarding the hypothesis testing, the researchers run bootstrapping method to check whatever
employee wellbeing moderates relationship between (training, compensation, career planning, mentoring) and
employee performance. As shown in Table 5, out of five moderating interaction hypothesis two hypothesis are
significant at p < 0.1 and remaining two are insignificant at p < 0.1. At the same time, the R2 value is increased to
0.86 by introducing employee wellbeing as moderating variable between (training, compensation, career planning,
mentoring) and employee performance.
5. DISCUSSION
This study examines the post performance evaluation process reactions of the employees. The approach we have
carried confirms to involve different interventions to enhance the employee performance and satisfaction. This
research is helpful in providing base for the fact that organizational communication, job resources and coworker’s
relationship effect the employee performance positively. A social cognitive way can be carried in future studies if the
influential factors to performance evaluation are needed to be illuminated. Also plentiful job attributes may be helful
for the employees to see the evaluation process positively. The same way scarce job resources can result the other way
after performance evaluation process. According to Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Dipboye and de Pontbriand, 1981
individuals cannot be made accountable for their performance if they don’t have adequate job resources. This
concludes that the role of lack of resources in the performance evaluation process must not be neglected by the
managers as the might face negative situated cognitions from the employees when they are asked to prepare for the
process.
The H2 and H6 are about the organizational communication adequacy which is an important factor which
ultimately results in positive reactions by the employees to the performance evaluation process. The finding s of this
study also broaden the communication theory which focuses on the importance of resource availability for the
employees Gorden and Stewart, 2009) and according to this research if open communication atmosphere is provided
to the employees they will more positively take the performance evaluation process. This communication process can
be improved through organization’s news letters, social media, news electronic bill boards, FGDs and town hall type
meetings etc to welcome ideas input from the employees. Surveys, feedback and upward communication can be some
more tools to improve the communication adequacy and in a result the positive reactions to the performance evaluation
process. It is also concluded that better coworkers relationships also results in positive reactions to the evaluation
process because of the employee’s positive thinking. Further research on the role of social cognition in driving the
employee perception about evaluation process is needed because of its importance and need evident from the past
couple of decades (Feldman, 1981; Landy and Farr, 1980)
6. LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
It is important to note that several limitations of this study may negatively affect the generalizability of the results.
First, all the constructs in our research model were measured by respondents’ perceptions, which are subjective data
collected from one period of time. first, from the methodology perspective the cross-sectional survey method largely

94
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(1) 2020, 87-97

depends on the immediate recall and experience of respondents, who to some extent may have difficulties in measuring
or reflecting the real conditions of employee performance. Future research could conduct a longitudinal study to enrich
the findings by providing more relevant information on the potential variations of the links between independent and
dependent variables within the same sample across time. In addition a lab experiment or field experiment can also be
used to test the moderating effects of employee procedural justice from the design science research perspective.
Implication
This study identifies and strongly suggests the need of Job resource adequacy and communication adequacy to
be considered by the HR professionals for a performance evaluation process so that positive feelings could be
generated about the process. This study further supports the positive aspects of relationships with coworkers which
must be focused through organizational culture and norms and in a result more supportive organizational environment
will be created. Murphy and Cleveland (1995) characterized techniques into nomothetic and idiographic approaches
involving analyzation of workplace features and also identifying skills that are important to achieve performance
goals. It can also be called contextualization approach which can result in having a fit between performance evaluation
setup and work performance the organization facilitates and the work performance controlled by individual’s own
self. Finally, the managers must take into account, the human factor in the organizations, during the time when there
are less resources due to economic severity. Individuals must be evaluated considering what they are having in the
organization i.e communication adequacy and coworkers relationship at the workplace. The performance will benefit
the organization and individual himself to improve their behaviors if the performance evaluation process improves.
Future direction
Research context was limited to service sector of Islamabad, while the future research can be extended to
different sectors of different cities to get more significant results. Small number of respondents has been chosen for
this study so a similar study should be conducted by increasing a sample size. The researcher acknowledges if
generalizability is needed, the study should be replicated with new measures and using redome sampling at the
organization. It is believed by the researcher that a situated cognition approach can attract the researcher to further
work on protection of resource model (Hobfoll, 1989). Employee with more resources at workplace will have more
positive attitude towards performance evaluation process and they may have different perception towards job resource
adequacy as compared to the workers with less resources at workplace. Researchers who follow Gruman and Saks
(2011) considering employee engagement a tool for performance management can research on the relationship
between performance management and employee engagement more broadly. Further research can also be carried to
improve performance evaluation process through social cognition.
REFERENCES
Adkins, C. L., &Naumann, S. E. (2001). Situational constraints on the achievement–performance relationship: a
service sector study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(4), 453-465.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance.International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Anseel, F. Lievens, F and Levy, P.E. (2007). A self-motives perspective on feedback seeking behavior: Linking
organizational behavior and social psychology research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 211-
236
Anton, C. (2009). The impact of role stress on workers' behaviour through job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. International Journal of Psychology, 44(3), 187-194.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., &Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange fairness and employee performance: An examination of
the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 94(1), 1-14.
Bacharach, S. B., & Bamberger, P. (1995). Beyond situational constraints: Job resources inadequacy and individual
performance at work. Human Resource Management Review, 5(2), 79-102.
Bose, M., Anne Garretson Folse, J., & Burton, S. (2013). The role of contextual factors in eliciting creativity: primes,
cognitive load and expectation of performance feedback. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(5), 400-414.
Brown, M., Hyatt, D., & Benson, J. (2010). Consequences of the performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review,
39(3), 375-396.
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee
reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of applied psychology, 83(4), 615.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do coworkers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of
lateral social influences in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082-1103.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational

95
Mahar et al. Impact of Organizational Context on Performance Evaluation . . .

behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 278-321.

Dahling, J., O'Malley, A. L., & Chau, S. L. (2015).Effects of feedback motives on inquiry and performance. Journal
of Managerial Psychology,30(2), 199-215.
Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. (1999).The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluations’
fairness.Academy of Management journal, 42(3), 288-303.
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.
Feys, M., Libbrecht, N., Anseel, F., &Lievens, F. (2008). A closer look at the relationship between justice perceptions
and feedback reactions: the role of the quality of the relationship with the supervisor. Psychologica
Belgica,48(2-3).
Findley, H. M., Giles, W. F., &Mossholder, K. W. (2000). Performance appraisal process and system facets:
Relationships with contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 634.
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive
behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27(8), 1089-1120.
Ghebregiorgis, F., &Karsten, L. (2007). Employee reactions to human resource management and performance in a
developing country: Evidence from Eritrea. Personnel review, 36(5), 722-738.
Ghosh, P., Rai, A., & Sinha, A. (2014). Organizational justice and employee engagement: Exploring the linkage in
public sector banks in India. Personnel Review, 43(4), 628-652.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job
performance: examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 227-271.
Goris, J. R. (2007). Effects of satisfaction with communication on the relationship between individual-job congruence
and job performance/satisfaction. Journal of Management Development, 26(8), 737-752.
Govaerts, M. J., van de Wiel, M. W., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2013). Quality of feedback following performance
assessments: does assessor expertise matter?. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(1), 105-
125.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends?.
Journal of applied psychology,72(1), 55.
Gregory, J. B., Levy, P. E., & Jeffers, M. (2008).Development of a model of the feedback process within executive
coaching.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 42.
Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a
process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353.
Hetty van Emmerik, I. J., Bakker, A. B., &Euwema, M. C. (2009).Explaining employees' evaluations of organizational
change with the job-demands resources model. Career Development International, 14(6), 594-613.
Hodgkinson, G. P. (2003). The interface of cognitive and industrial, work and organizational psychology. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 1-25.
Jawahar, I. M. (2005). Do raters consider the influence of situational factors on observed performance when evaluating
performance? Evidence from three experiments. Group & Organization Management, 30(1), 6-41.
Jawahar, I. M. (2007).The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions.Journal of Labor
research, 28(4), 735-754.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993).Social context of performance evaluation decisions.Academy of management
journal, 36(1), 80-105.
Jung, Y. (2014). Employee Voice and Recipients' Appraisals/Reactions: The Effects Of Speech Style, Voice Type,
and Voicer Status.
Kavanagh, P., Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2007).Understanding performance appraisal fairness. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 45(2), 132-150.
Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias.
Journal of applied psychology,85(5), 708.
KlemmVerbos, A., S. Miller, J., &Goswami, A. (2014). Employee social cognition and performance evaluation
process reactions. Personnel Review,43(4), 515-535.
Koesmono, H. T. (2014). The Influence of Organizational Culture, Servant Leadership, and Job Satisfaction Toward
Organizational Commitment and Job Performance Through Work Motivation as Moderating Variables for
Lecturers in Economics and Management of Private Universities in East Surabaya. Educational Research
International, 3(4).
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.

96
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(1) 2020, 87-97

Martínez-Tur, V., Peiro, J. M., & Ramos, J. (2005).Linking situational constraints to customer satisfaction in a service
environment.Applied Psychology, 54(1), 25-36.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., 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.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004).The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and
availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.Journal of occupational and organizational
psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2011).Effective performance feedback for learning in organizations and organizational
learning. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 26(1), 15-18.
Myers, K. K., &Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on millennials’
organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225-238.
Ng, T. W., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of
support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently
overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 391-397.
Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A metaanalysis. Human
Resource Management, 51(5), 709-732.
Prasad, K., &Akhilesh, K. B. (2002). Global virtual teams: what impacts their design and performance?. Team
Performance Management: An International Journal, 8(5/6), 102-112.
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.
Rousseau, V., &Aubé, C. (2010). Social support at work and affective commitment to the organization: The
moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions. The Journal of social psychology,
150(4), 321-340.
Stanton, J. M. (2000). Reactions to employee performance monitoring: Framework, review, and research directions.
Human Performance, 13(1), 85-113.
Tanveer, Y., Shaukat, M. Z., Alvi, S. A., &Munir, A. (2011). The Way Human Resource Management (Hrm) Practices
Effect Employees Performance: A Case Of Textile Sector. Management, 1(4), 112-117.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational
justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management
Journal,48(1), 146-157.
Traberg, A., Jacobsen, P., & Monique Duthiers, N. (2014).Advancing the use of performance evaluation in health
care.Journal of health organization and management, 28(3), 422-436.
Walsh, M. B. (2003). Perceived fairness of and satisfaction with employee performance appraisal (Doctoral
dissertation, Louisiana State University).

97