The influence of interaction and trust on the
relationship between subjective performance
evaluation and job satisfaction
Marieke van den Top – S3485250
June 24
th2019
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc BA – Organizational and Management Control
Supervisor: N.J.B. Mangin
Co-assessor: Prof. dr. ir. P.M.G. van Veen-Dirks
2
Abstract
Performance evaluations influence important managerial decisions and are needed for effective management and development of the employees, which improves organization performance and job satisfaction. This stresses the importance for effective performance evaluations. This study focuses on how subjectivity of performance evaluation affects the subordinate’s job satisfaction. Trust is added as a moderator. Furthermore, it is examined whether frequency of contact results in increased trust between supervisor and subordinate. The findings of this study are based on a survey conducted with 49 subordinates with questions based on prior literature. In this research setting, a multivariate regression analysis showed that there is no significant relationship between subjectivity of performance evaluation and job satisfaction, and that trust does not seem to influence this relationship. Moreover, frequency of contact did not have a significant positive relationship with trust. A correlation analysis showed that lower education is correlated to the use of objective performance evaluations, these objective evaluations are correlated to trust, and trust is correlated with job satisfaction.
3
Introduction
Performance evaluations are one of the main factors influencing important managerial decisions. Based on performance evaluations promotions, bonuses, and reorganization decisions are made (Mizruchi, Stearns, & Fleischer, 2011). Furthermore, performance evaluations are essential for effective management and development of employees, which improves organizational performance (Ahmed, Sultana, Paul, & Azeem, 2013). Davar & Bala (2012) have shown that there is a positive relation between job performance and job satisfaction. Effective performance evaluations thus lead to job performance, which leads to job satisfaction. Satisfied employees are more committed to the organization and have increased job performance (Dhammika, Ahmad, & Sam, 2012). This stresses the importance of effective performance evaluations for the organizational performance and the job satisfaction of the employees.
Performance evaluations are often, partly, based on objective measures. Objective performance measures are often quantitative and predetermined. An example could be the measures extracted from financial data, for example sale size or net profit per employee (Gibbs M. , Merchant, Van der Stede, & Vargus, 2004). Since objective measures are predetermined, it does not involve the judgment of the evaluator. Baker, Gibbons & Murphy (1994) argue that only using objective performance measures would be insufficient. Objective measures are imperfect and cannot asses everything. Furthermore, objective measures are often too easy to manipulate by workers, resulting in dysfunctional behavior. They therefore state that objective measures should be used in conjunction with subjective measures. Subjective performance measures are defined as ‘superior’s subjective judgments about qualitative performance indicators’ (Moers, 2005, p. 68). Moers identified two categories of subjectivity in performance evaluations; subjective performance criteria used and the weights assigned to the performance measures, which indicates their importance for the performance evaluation. Assigning these weights to the performance measures allows the supervisor to make an indication of the most important measures and thus use the best suited performance evaluation for their objective (Frederiksen, Lange, & Kriechel, 2017). The evaluator using his personal judgment also raises some problems, for example when he has a personal stake in the outcome (Bol, 2005). High subjectivity in performance evaluations could also lead to favoritism from the evaluator (Hussain, 2012). This could lead to less accurate evaluations and result in insecurity of the evaluatee.
4
reduces uncertainty and worries (Khalid & Ahmed, 2016). Trust therefore impacts both subjectivity in performance evaluation and job satisfaction of the subordinate.
Trust can be established in multiple ways. Gefen (2013) has conducted research on how new school leaders solidify their new position, of which establishing trust played a big part. The way in which these new school leaders established trust was by demonstrating their knowledge and skills on the subject, and by guiding and instructing their subordinates. In order to show these skills and to guide their subordinates, it became noticeable that contact and taking an interest into their subordinates was of high importance. These repeated social exchanges and communication between the supervisor and subordinate allowed for trust to grow. It is thus likely that when supervisors increase the frequency of contact with their subordinate trust increases, which increases the positive effects of subjectivity in performance evaluations. Based on the prior literature, the following research question is proposed:
‘Do frequent interactions between subordinate and supervisor accentuate a relationship between subjective performance evaluation and job satisfaction of the subordinate through the building of trust?’
In order to answer this question, a survey was conducted amongst subordinates. The sample consists of 49 individuals from various companies. The data from this survey was used in a correlation analysis and multivariate regression analysis. The regression analysis showed that subjectivity of performance evaluation does not lead to job satisfaction and that trust does not accentuate this relationship. Furthermore, frequency of contact does not lead to trust. The correlation analysis found a significant negative correlation between education and objective performance criteria. The use of objective performance criteria was positively correlated to trust. Finally, trust is positively correlated to job satisfaction, once again stressing the importance of trust.
5
Literature review
Subjective performance evaluations
Subjective performance measures was previously defined as ‘superior’s subjective judgments about qualitative performance indicators’ (Moers, 2005, p. 68). It thus allows the supervisor to make a judgment about which performance measures are most important for the specific job, rather than a previously set out performance appraisal that might not fit the specific situation. Frederiksen et al. (2017) agree and state that with subjective rather than objective performance measures the supervisor can make an indication of the most important measures and thus use the best suited performance measures in their evaluations. The supervisor often knows best which performance criteria are important for the job and can thus lead the subjective performance evaluation based on his own judgment. Prendergast agrees and states that ‘subjective assessments have the benefit that they can be a more fully rounded measure of performance’ (1999, p. 9). She explains that subjective performance evaluations are more complete assessments and allow for a more holistic picture of the subordinate’s performance, since more factors can be taken into account. Since subjective performance criteria are based on the evaluator’s judgment and not monitorable by the subordinate, it is difficult for the subordinate to influence their supervisor’s performance evaluation (Frederiksen, Lange, & Kriechel, 2017). Not being able to influence the evaluation together with the evaluation being more complete leads to more equal performance evaluations, which lead to an increase in job satisfaction of the subordinate (Lawrence, 2000).
Research by Baker et al. (1994) is in line with the thought that subjective assessments are more complete than only objective evaluations. Objective measures cannot asses everything, like an employee’s contribution to firm value, whilst subjective performance measures can. Furthermore, objective measures are often too easy to manipulate by workers, resulting in dysfunctional behavior. Since objective measures are easier to influence, some subordinates could ‘game the system’ by trying to influence the specific performance criteria, whilst neglecting other activities that are not included in the performance evaluation. Since subjective measures make it more difficult for employees to influence the evaluation, it protects other subordinates from the impact of such uncontrollable events. The use of subjective performance measures therefore reduces perceived employee’s risk (Frederiksen, Lange, & Kriechel, 2017). Because of this, Baker et al. (1994) state that both objective and subjective performance measures should be used, rather than only objective performance measures. Next to reduced employee’s risk, using a more complete and flexible form of evaluation could make the employee feel more recognized, especially when his job involves a lot of soft aspects, which are more difficult to objectively measure.
6
Gibbs, Merchant, van der Stede & Vargus (2004) observed a positive relationship between the reliance on subjective measures for bonusses and employees’ pay satisfaction, sales productivity, and net profit. Just as Frederiksen et al., their theory uses the mitigation of gaming the system, due to a more complete performance evaluation when subjective performance measures are involved. A more complete performance evaluation leads to reduced risk for the subordinate and results in pay satisfaction. Stringer, Didham and Theivananthampillai (2011) found that there is a very strong association between pay satisfaction and job satisfaction. Their research is based on Vroom’s expectancy theory, which states that individuals can be motivated and feel satisfied in several ways, which among others includes that the individual feels that its performance is tied to a desirable reward (Vroom, 1983). In other words, an individual feels satisfied with their job when they feel satisfied with their reward. Pay satisfaction thus leads to job satisfaction. Since Gibbs et al. (2004) found that subjective performance evaluation had a positive relationship with pay satisfaction, and Vroom (1983) and Stringer et al. (2011) found that pay satisfaction leads to job satisfaction, it can be argued that subjective performance evaluation leads to job satisfaction. Based on this argument by Gibbs et al. (2004) and the argument that subjectivity of performance evaluation leads to alignment between supervisor and supervisee, reduced risk and more recognition, the following hypothesis can be proposed;
H1: A higher level of subjectivity in performance evaluations has a positive relationship with job
satisfaction of the subordinate
Effects of trust
This study will be based on the following definition of trust: ‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.’ (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Subjective performance evaluations take more soft performance criteria into account, some of which are not easily quantifiable (Prendergast, 1999; Frederiksen, Lange & Kriechel, 2017). It therefore requires the personal judgment of the evaluator (Gibbs M. J., Merchant, Van der Stede, & Vargus, 2005). Next to the positive effects that subjective performance evaluations have on the subordinate, its difficulty to monitor or control the evaluation could also result in the subordinate feeling vulnerable. Trust consists of willingness to be vulnerable, even when the subordinate cannot monitor or control the supervisor. Therefore, trust plays an important part in the job satisfaction of the subordinate when subjective performance criteria are present.
7
Foster, & Agnew, 1999). Lau & Tan (2006) state that trust between two individuals results in increased problem solving effectiveness, improved decision making quality and implementation, and makes them want to help and work together more. Read (1962) adds that accurate information exchange between two individuals is more likely to occur under conditions of trust. His research showed that some subordinates feel that communicating something negative, for example unsolved problems, to a supervisor they do not trust could be used against them in their evaluation. Therefore, in a situation of mistrust, more inaccurate information or less information in general is communicated by the subordinate to the supervisor. This threatens the quality of the performance evaluation. These studies indicate that the quality of the subjective performance evaluation given by the supervisor increases when trust is present, since the evaluation will be based on more accurate information, and the decision making quality of the supervisor will be increased. This increase in evaluation quality will have a positive effect on the supervisor.
Trust also creates many positive behavioral changes in the supervisee, which might make the subordinate more satisfied. Firstly, trust results in the individuals perceiving the actions of the other individual more favorably. They trust that the other individuals makes a well informed and thought through decision (Bianco, 2010). Kramer states that trusting an individual essentially means trusting the system they work with, for example the subjectivity of performance evaluations (Kramer, 2009). This shows that when trust between subordinate and supervisor is present, the subordinate feels more comfortable with the subjective performance evaluation executed by the supervisor. Furthermore, Holmes & Rempel have found that trust frees the individuals from anxiety (1989). The feeling of trust gives them a sense of security, reducing uncertainty and worries (Khalid & Ahmed, 2016). Lau and Tan (2006) add that trust relationships lead to lower levels of anxiety, stress and tension in the workplace. These behavioral changes help with the vulnerability that subjective performance evaluations cause and thus increase the subordinate’s job satisfaction.
Gibbs, Merchant, van der Stede & Vargus have found a similar result in their research about the use of subjective performance measures (2004). They found a positive relationship between the use of subjective performance measures and the employees’ pay satisfaction, sales productivity and net profit. Trust strengthened this relationship. Based on this research and the above literature which show that trust makes the subordinate more comfortable with subjective performance evaluations, makes the supervisee feel more confident in the supervisor’s judgment and reduces the insecurity and anxiety of the supervisee, the third hypothesis is proposed;
H2: Trust between supervisor and subordinate accentuates the positive relationship between
8
Dyadic model of trust
The definition of trust stated in the previous paragraph was: ‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.’ (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Simpson (2007) has developed a dyadic model of trust, which explains how trust can develop between both partners. The Dyadic Model of Trust states that there are five stages of trust, starting from entering the trust relation to the final stage called perceptions of felt security. Every individual decides for themselves whether or not to enter the following trust stage. Trust naturally develops during everyday life when more trust-diagnostic situations arrive. These trust-diagnostic situations can be seen as an action performed that is important to the trustor, which cannot be monitored or controlled by that party, as stated in the trust definition of Mayer et al. (1995). There are two types of trust-diagnostic situations: trust situations in which the partner can make mutually beneficial decisions which enhance trust, and strain-test situations in which the partners can show their willingness to make sacrifices to enhance the relationship and accompanying trust in the relationship. Both these situations can result in the partners passing onto the next trust stage. In such trust-diagnostic situations, the partner can either pass or fail the test. Whether or not trust will be established between both partners depends on if they pass the tests.
Social exchange theory states that in relationships partners weigh the risk and rewards of their actions. The supervisor’s and supervisee’s professional role shows the partners that a positive outcome of the trust-diagnostic situation is beneficial, since this will result in better social rewards (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This theory shows that it is more likely that the partners will pass the trust-diagnostic situation, rather than fail. Furthermore, framing theory states that some partners might seek to maximize their own utility. However, the desire to act in a cooperative way and in favor of the relationship eventually surpasses the self-interest of the partners, which shows that in the long run, partners would want to pass the trust tests (Lindenberg, 2000). In order for a manager to showcase that he can be trusted and wants to build a trust relationship he will send signals to his subordinates. Relational signalling are voluntary actions to show commitment to the relationship, which results in the ability and intention to behave co-operatively (Minnaar R. , van Veen-Dirks, Vosselman, & Zahir-ul-Hassan, 2010). Because of this, relational signalling can lead to thick trust between supervisor and subordinate (Minnaar R. A., van Veen-Dirks, Vosselman, & Zahir-ul-Hassan, 2017). Since managers would want to signal that they want to commit to the relationship, they want to pass the trust-diagnostic situation. It is therefore more likely that the supervisor and subordinate will more often pass than fail the trust tests, which will result in trust between the two partners. The only factor needed is contact and time, since trust will naturally develop over time (Simpson, 2007).
9
When asked which of these unknown individuals they liked more, they chose the ones that were often shown by the researcher. This can be explained by the frequency-value relationship, which states that there is a positive enhancement of attitudes by mere repeated exposure of individuals. Multiple researchers strengthened this finding. Aronson, Wilson & Akert (2014) found that showing photographs leads to familiarity. Becoming more familiar with a person creates a liking and a bond between those people. Another experiment also showed the mere exposure effect by doing an exposure experiment. An increase in female business leaders was shown through billboards and flyers in a male heavy company. More exposure to female business leaders unconsciously resulted in the male business leaders getting more familiar with the females. When asked about their preferences, the personal preference and trust in the female business leaders increased, due to the mere exposure effect (Kwan, Yap, & Chiu, 2015).
Though there are some researches about the mere exposure effect enhancing the trust between two individuals, very few of these researches include close contact. Both the original study by Zajonc (1968), as the study conducted by Aronson, Wilson & Akert (2014) and the study of Kwan, Yap & Chiu (2015) focused on distant contact, only showing photographs or billboards of the other individual in the trust relationship. This study will focus more on direct contact between supervisor and supervisee. Based on the mere exposure effect and the dyadic model of trust, which both state that more contact can result in increased trust between two parties, the second hypothesis is proposed:
H3: An increase in the frequency of contact between supervisor and subordinate results in an
increase in trust between supervisor and subordinate.
Conceptual model
10
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Methodology
Sample and procedure
This study focuses on the opinion of supervisees and how they view the subjectivity in performance evaluations, the trust between themselves and their supervisor and how satisfied they are with their job. Since this study focuses on the opinion of these supervisees, a survey directed to them is the most suitable research option. An advantage of using an online survey as data collection method is that a lot of diverse individuals can easily be contacted. The survey was prepared in Qualtrics, which is a management tool directed at increasing the insight of managers into their organization and the opinion of their employees (Qualtrics, 2019). All questions asked in the survey are extracted from previous research, which have shown its effectiveness. The data will be extracted from Qualtrics and used in IBM SPSS Statistics to conduct a statistical analysis.
Several companies were contacted and asked to spread the survey amongst their employees. Furthermore, individuals asked their acquaintances to fill in the survey. The response rate was approximately 59% and consisted of 49 individuals. The response rate is further explained in Appendix
A: Response rate. Of these 49 individuals, 80% was male and 20% was female. 20.8% Was younger
11
Measures
The variables of interest in this study are subjectivity of performance evaluation, SUBJ_PE, the job satisfaction of the supervisees, JOBSAT, trust between supervisor and supervisee, TRUST, contact between supervisor and supervisee, CONTACT, and the moderator which is the interaction of SUBJ_PE and TRUST called SUBJ_PE * TRUST.
For the independent variable, SUBJ_PE, the respondent was asked if they are evaluated on specific performance criteria and if they are evaluated based on their competencies. If the respondent indicates that he/she has some insight into their performance evaluation, he/she can choose from several performance criteria. Part of these performance criteria are previously used by Moers (2005), who stated that subjective performance measures are improved quality of service, good use of the available resources, and adequate planning skills. Furthermore, Baker et al. (1994) mentioned that most firms would like employees to be cooperative, innovative and dependable. The respondents were asked whether they were evaluated on above criteria. A 5 point Likert scale was used, with the following scales; completely disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, completely agree. Additionally, the respondents had an open space to name other performance measures which were not stated in the answers.
The dependent variable, JOBSAT, was developed using section four of the job diagnostic survey, which focuses on job satisfaction. This section focuses on 5 sub-scales of job satisfaction, namely job security, pay and compensation, social satisfaction given by peers and co-workers, supervision, and opportunities for personal growth and development on the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1974). One question per sub scale was included in the survey. In line with the job diagnostic survey, a 7 point Likert Scale was used with the following scales; extremely dissatisfied, dissatisfied, slightly dissatisfied, neutral, slightly satisfied, satisfied and extremely satisfied. According to Nagy (2002), simply asking how satisfied one is with their job gives a good indication of one’s job satisfaction. Therefore, the question about job satisfaction as a whole is added to the 5 questions deduced from the job diagnostic survey.
12
The frequency of contact between supervisor and supervisee, CONTACT, has been derived from simply asking the respondents how often they have direct and indirect contact with their supervisor. Gibbs et al. (2004) asked their respondents to indicate the percentage of their working time that they spend interacting with managers. Therefore, the supervisees were given a percentage scale to answer above questions ranging from 0 to 100%.
The last variable of interest is the interaction variable between SUBJ_PE and TRUST, calculated as the product of these standardized variables. This variable is called SUBJ_PE * TRUST, and serves as the moderator variable showing whether trust accentuates the relationship between subjectivity of performance evaluation and job satisfaction.
13
scale. The following scales were provided; completely disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, completely agree. All the survey questions and their origins can be found in Appendix B: Survey questions. The relation between subjectivity of performance evaluation and job satisfaction and the effect trust has on this relation will be tested using a multivariate regression. Another multivariate regression will show the effect of the frequency of contact between supervisor and supervisee on trust. In order to test the reliability and internal consistency of the variables a factor analysis was conducted.
The moderator TRUST consisted of four items, all of which were correlated in one component. The Cronbach’s alpha of the variable TRUST is .807. The six items of the dependent variable JOBSAT were not all correlated in one component. The supervisee’s satisfaction from pay and compensation was removed, after which all other five items were correlated with a Cronbach’s alpha of .781. The items related to performance evaluation were divided into subjective and objective, after which the variables for subjective performance evaluation, SUBJ_PE, and objective performance evaluation, OBJ_PE, were made. A scree plot for SUBJ_PE showed that 3 items were sufficient for the variable. The items innovativeness, dependable, and cooperative showed a high correlation in one component and had a Cronbach’s alpha of .728. Another scree plot for OBJ_PE also showed that three items were needed in order to sufficiently use this variable in a regression. The items referring to whether specific performance evaluations were used, and that performance compared to the budget and quantity were used as performance measurements formed one component with a Cronbach’s alpha of .639.
After all variable components with a Cronbach’s alpha of higher than .6 were formed, new variables were made. The mean of all items within one variable was calculated and changed into new variables, named JOBSAT, SUBJ_PE, OBJ_PE, and TRUST. These variables will be used for the multiple regression analysis.
Method description
The hypotheses of this study will be tested using a multivariate regression analysis. The regression equation for hypothesis 1 and 2, with job satisfaction as the dependent variable, is the following:
Job satisfaction = β1 SUBJ_PE + β2 SUBJ_PE*TRUST + β3 CONTACT + Control variables
Based on the literature research conducted, it is expected that β1 SUBJ_PE will be positive and
significant, showing that subjective performance criteria lead to job satisfaction and hypothesis 1 is supported. Furthermore, β2 SUBJ_PE*TRUST is expected to be positively significant, showing that trust
accentuates above relationship and that hypothesis 2 is supported. Finally, β3 CONTACT is expected to
14
A second regression analysis where trust, TRUST, is the dependent variable was conducted in order to test hypothesis 3,. The regression equation is the following:
Trust = β1 CONTACT + Control variables
Β1 CONTACT is expected to be positively significant, showing that more frequency of contact leads to
more trust between supervisor and subordinate. This would show that hypothesis 3 is supported.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables of interest. The sample size of this research consists of 49 participants. The skewness of the variables ranges between -1.203 and 1.247, showing that none of the variables are heavily positively or negatively skewed. Furthermore, the kurtosis of all variables is within the -.062 to 1.785 range, which shows that the variables are normally distributed. Finally, the multicollinearity of the variables was tested using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) (Field, 2013). The VIF ranged between 1.096 and 2.616, therefore not showing high multicollinearity. None of the above tests have violated the assumptions of a linear regression, which is why a multivariate linear regression will be conducted.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics N M SD MIN MAX CONTACT 49 24.14 26.06 2.0 89.0 TRUST 52 3.47 .71 1.5 4.8 SUBJ_PE 52 3.85 .63 2 5 SUBJ_PE * TRUST 52 .20 1.04 -2.2 4.1 JOBSAT 51 5.48 .90 2.4 6.8
15
criteria and trust between employer and employee. This could show that objective performance criteria result in trust, or that when trust is established more objective performance criteria are used. Finally, trust and job satisfaction are highly correlated. This indicates that when trust between supervisor and subordinate is established, the job satisfaction of the subordinate increases. It could also show that job satisfaction of the subordinate leads to trust.
Table 2 Correlation analysis Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Gender¹ 2. Age .015 3. Education -.105 -.019 4. Sector .219 -.080 .105 5. Size .265 -.083 -.236 .399** 6. Obj_pe -.076 .074 -.369** -.186 -.147 7. Trust -.142 .091 .004 .021 -.139 .388** 8. Contact .048 -.243 -.241 -.008 -.139 .244 .205 9. Jobsat -.114 -.025 .094 .092 -.032 .214 .636** .095 10. Subj_pe .002 .131 .076 -.053 -.088 .206 .202 -.176 .150 * P < .05, ** p < .01
¹ 1 = Male, 2 = Female, 3 = No comment
Multiple regression
The first model shown in table 3 shows the control variables. Only TRUST has a significant beta, which is in line with the high correlation between trust and job satisfaction shown in table 2. The R2 is .426
and significant, showing that almost half of the variance is explained by the control variables.
Model 2 shows the control variables and the independent variable, SUBJ_PE. The first hypothesis stated that there was a positive relation between subjectivity of performance evaluation and the job satisfaction of the supervisee. However, the beta of SUBJ_PE is not significant, showing that subjectivity of performance evaluation is not related to job satisfaction. Therefore, it can be stated that hypothesis 1 is not supported. It could be possible that the positive impact of subjective performance evaluations is conditioned by trust, which leads to the next hypothesis test.
16
The final model in table 3 adds the variable CONTACT. This model tests whether frequency of interaction between supervisor and subordinate accentuates the relationship between the use of subjective performance evaluation and job satisfaction, which was earlier tested as hypothesis 1. CONTACT was not significant, and therefore shows that both trust and frequency of contact have no influence on the relationship between the use of subjectivity in performance evaluation and job satisfaction of the subordinate.
Table 3
Regression with job satisfaction as dependent variable
Model 1 ß Model 2 ß Model 3 ß Model 4 ß VARIABLES OF INTEREST - SUBJ_PE .030 .091 .131 - SUBJ_PE * TRUST .122 .146 - CONTACT -.017 CONTROL VARIABLES - GENDER .020 .018 .013 .000 - AGE -.077 -.080 -.066 -.061 - EDUCATION .083 .078 .057 .021 - SECTOR .073 .074 .076 .060 - COMP_SIZE .026 .025 .027 .085 - OBJ_PE .021 .015 .027 -.009 - TRUST .642*** .638*** .629*** .642*** R2 .426*** .427 .438 .449 ΔR2 .001 .011 .011 N 51 51 51 49 * P < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
17 Table 4
Regression with trust as dependent variable
Model 1 ß Model 2 ß VARIABLES OF INTEREST - CONTACT .253 CONTROL VARIABLES - GENDER -.135 -.204 - AGE .089 .136 - EDUCATION -.055 .038 - SECTOR .126 .063 - COMP_SIZE -.157 -.035 R2 .052 .101 ΔR2 .049 N 52 49 * P < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 5
Summary of hypothesis test results
Number Hypothesis Expected Finding
1. A higher level of subjectivity in performance evaluations has a positive relationship with job satisfaction of the subordinate
+
Not supported
2. Trust between supervisor and subordinate positively moderates the relationship between subjective performance evaluation and job satisfaction of the subordinate
+
Not supported
3. An increase in the frequency of contact between supervisor and subordinate results in an increase in trust between supervisor and subordinate.
+
18
Discussion and conclusion
Performance evaluations influence important managerial decisions and improve organizational performance and job satisfaction. Therefore, the research question of this study was: ‘’Do frequent
interactions between subordinate and supervisor accentuate a relationship between subjective performance evaluation and job satisfaction of the subordinate through the building of trust?‘’. First,
we expected that subjectivity of performance evaluation would lead to job satisfaction of the subordinate. Using subjective performance criteria has the advantage that it can assess more soft performance aspects than when solely using objective measures and it reduces the subordinate’s risk by protecting him from the impact of uncontrollable events, thus leading to job satisfaction (Frederiksen, Lange, & Kriechel, 2017; Baker, Gibbons & Murphy, 1994; Moers, 2005). Secondly, it was hypothesized that trust would accentuate the relationship between subjective performance evaluation and job satisfaction. Trust established between supervisor and subordinate increases the quality of subjective performance evaluations, and reduces uncertainty, worries, stress, anxiety and tension of the subordinate (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Khalid & Ahmed, 2016; Lau & Tan, 2006). Finally, increasing the frequency of contact would likely result in increased trust. The Dyadic Model of Trust shows that over time trust is stablished when partners pass trust-diagnostic situations. Furthermore, the mere exposure effect shows that merely seeing an individual creates a liking and trust. More frequency of contact would thus result in trust (Simpson, 2007; Zajonc, 1968).
Summary of the results and discussion
In order to test the hypotheses a multivariate regression analysis was conducted. The first hypothesis, which stated that subjectivity of performance evaluation would lead to job satisfaction, was not supported. A potential reason that this hypothesis is not supported, is that there might be countervailing forces that are cancelling the positive effect between subjective performance evaluation and job satisfaction. There might be some conditions in order for subjective performance evaluations to have a positive impact. Therefore, trust was tested as a moderator for hypothesis 1.
The second hypothesis stated that trust would accentuate the relationship between subjectivity of performance evaluation and job satisfaction. The results were not significant, and therefore this hypothesis is not supported. According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that the sole use of subjective performance criteria does not result in job satisfaction per se, or even in combination with trust.
19
satisfaction. Bol (2005) stated that an evaluator who has a personal stake in the outcome of the performance evaluation should minimize the use of subjective performance criteria. High subjectivity could in those situations lead to favouritism from the evaluator (Hussain, 2012). Van Rimsum & Verbeeten (2012) state that the positive effects of the use of subjective performance criteria depends on the communication skills of the supervisor. Unclear informational feedback could result in decreased mission clarity, which in turn leads to a decrease in motivation (Locke & Latham, 1990). Lack of communication skills could thus lead to a decrease in job satisfaction. These studies show that when the evaluator has a personal stake in the outcome or lacks communication skills, the use of subjective performance criteria should be limited. However, this study did not test for the moderating influence of these factors, which could have resulted in a positive relationship between subjectivity of performance evaluation and job satisfaction.
The results for hypothesis three, which researched whether frequency of contact leads to trust, showed that it was not supported. The reason for this could be that the partners failed rather than passed the trust-diagnostic situations, which would lead to a decrease in trust. Framing theory states that partners eventually want to behave in a cooperative way. However, initially individuals seek to maximize their own utility (Lindenberg, 2000). Since it is unknown what the relationship between the subordinates and the supervisors in the used sample was like, it is difficult to state whether they wanted to behave in a cooperative or a selfish way in the trust-diagnostic situations. If most partners wanted to behave in a selfish way and thus fail the trust-diagnostic situation, frequency of contact would not lead to more trust. An additional analysis was done to test whether frequency of contact accentuates the relationship between subjectivity in performance evaluation and job satisfaction of the subordinate. This would show that only frequency of contact was needed to accentuate this relationship, and that trust was no part of this. However, this was not supported by the observations of this study, showing that frequency of contact also has no influence on the relationship proposed in hypothesis 1. Frequency of contact was originally thought to be linked to an increase in job satisfaction. However, Fonner & Roloff (2010) state that a lot of interaction between supervisor and subordinate also has its disadvantages. Their research shows that for some individuals, increased communication can lead to too much information and generates a sense of overload. Meetings sometimes interfere with normal work life and therefore disrupts their work-life balance. This increases stress levels and thus reduces job satisfaction. Therefore, this paper adds to the sceptic side of the positiveness about frequent interaction. Sometimes less interaction can be beneficial for the job satisfaction of an individual, since it gives them more feelings of autonomy and independence (Barrenechea-méndez, Ortín-Ángel, & Rodes, 2016).
20
is by the use of objective performance criteria. Trust was positively correlated to objective performance criteria in the correlation analysis. Objective performance criteria are predetermined, rather than based on judgement like subjective performance criteria (Gibbs, M., Merchant, Van der Stede, & Vargus, 2004; Moers, 2005). If the subordinate knows how he will be evaluated, trust between subordinate and supervisor could increase. Objective performance criteria are thus very important for performance evaluations.
Finally, a negative correlation was shown between education and objective performance measures, showing that lower educated individuals have more objective performance measures. Lower educated employees typically operate at different levels than higher educated employees, which is why this could also show that lower educated positions often use objective performance criteria (Boudarbat & Chernoff, 2012). The correlation analysis thus showed that lower education is correlated to the use of objective performance evaluations, these objective evaluations are correlated to trust, and trust is correlated with job satisfaction.
Limitations and avenues for further research
21
method. In order to create a diverse sample, the data gathering should be focused on multiple industries, education levels and genders.
Secondly, some of the control variables explained only little of the variance of the dependent variable, causing a threat of internal validity. ‘Table 4: Regression with trust as dependent variable’ shows an R2
of 5.2% in model 1. This shows that the five control variables together only explained 5% of the variance in TRUST, and thus control for very little. Furthermore, literature showed that the use of subjective performance criteria should be minimized when the supervisor has a personal stake in the outcome or lacks communication skills (Bol, 2005; Rinsum & Verbeeten, 2012). However, these variables were not used in this study. Future research concerning the relation between subjective performance evaluations and job satisfaction should therefore incorporate the supervisor’s communication skills and personal stake in the outcome as moderators in the study.
Finally, the research outcomes were different than previously hypothesized, which could indicate a lack of literature research prior to the study. Some contributions were made based on this study’s correlation matrix of all variables. This matrix showed that lower education is correlated to the use of objective performance evaluations, objective evaluations are correlated to trust, and trust is correlated with job satisfaction. These findings could give supervisors practical advice, for example to implement more objective performance criteria in order to increase their subordinate’s job satisfaction. However, only a correlation analysis was conducted, which can therefore not fully support these relations found. Therefore, an avenue for further research would be to empirically test the correlations found in this study.
Conclusion
22
References
Ahmed, I., Sultana, I., Paul, S. K., & Azeem, A. (2013). Employee performance evaluation: A fuzzy approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(7), 718-734.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2014). Social Psychology. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Baker, G., Gibbons, R., & Murphy, K. J. (1994). Subjective performance measures in optimal incentive contracts. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4), 1125-1156.
doi:10.2307/2118358
Barrenechea-méndez, M., Ortín-Ángel, P., & Rodes, E. (2016). Autonomy and monitoring. Jounral of
Economics and Management Strategy, 25(4), 911-935.
Bianco, W. T. (2010). Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Michigan: University of Michigan Press 2010.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2014). Business research methods (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bol, J. C. (2005, November). Subjective performance evaluation. IESE Business School. Barcelona. Boudarbat, B., & Chernoff, V. (2012). Education-job match among recent Canadian university
graduates. Applied Economics Letters, 19(18), 1923-1926.
Carvajal, M. J., Popovici, I., & Hardigan, P. C. (2018). Gender differences in the measurement of pharmacists' job satisfaction. Human Resources for Health, 33, 1-8.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Crouch, C. (2005). Three meanings of complementarity. Soci-Economic Review, 3(2), 359-363. Davar, S., & Bala, R. (2012). Relationship between job satisfaction & job performance: A
meta-analysis. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(2), 290-305.
Dhammika, K., Ahmad, F. B., & Sam, T. L. (2012). Job satisfaction, commitment and performance: Testing the goodness of measures of three employee outcomes. South Asian Journal of
23
Eurostat. (2016, October 31). Glossary: Enterprise size. Retrieved from Eurostat: Statistics Explained: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Enterprise_size
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 115-130.
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 38(4), 336-361.
Frederiksen, A., Lange, F., & Kriechel, B. (2017). Subjective performance evaluations and employee careers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 408-429.
Gefen, D. (2013). Psychology of trust: new research. New York, USA: Nova Science Publishers. Gibbs, M. J., Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Vargus, M. E. (2005). The benefits of
evaluating performance subjectivity. Performance Improvement, 26-32.
Gibbs, M., Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Vargus, M. E. (2004). Determinants and effects of subjectivity in incentives. The Accounting Review, 79(2), 409-436.
Goergen, M., Chahine, S., Brewster, C., & Wood, G. (2013). Trust, owner rights, employee rights and firm performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 40(5), 589-619.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The job diagnostic survey: an instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. Technical report, 4, 1-84.
Holmes, J., & Rempel, J. (1989). Trust in close relationships. Review of personality and social
psychology, 187-220.
Hussain, I. (2012). Subjective performance evaluation in the public sector: Evidence from school inspections. Centre for the Economics of Education, 2-47.
Keller, G. (2012). Managerial Statistics (9th ed.). Boston, USA: South-Western Cengage Learning. Keser, C., & Özgümüs, A. (2018). Trust, vulnerability and trustworthiness. Economic letters, 149-151. Khalid, J., & Ahmed, J. (2016). Perceived organizational politics and employee silence: Supervisor
trust as a moderator. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 21(2), 174-195. doi:10.1080/13547860.2015.1092279
24
Kwan, L., Yap, S., & Chiu, C. Y. (2015). Mere exposure affects perceived descriptive norms:
Implications for personal preferences and trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 48-58. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.12.002
Lapointe, É., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Trust in the supervisor and the development of employees' social capital during orgaizational entry: A conservation of resources approach. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(17), 2503-2523.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1244097
Lau, C. M., & Tan, S. L. (2006). The effects of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust on job tension in budgeting. Management Accounting Research, 17, 171-186.
Lawrence, E. (2000). Equal opportunities officers and managing equality changes. Personnel Review,
29(3), 381-402.
Lefton, R. (1997). Aligning incentives using risk-sharing arrangements. Healthcare Financial
Management, 51(2), 50-54.
Lindenberg, S. (2000). It takes both trust and lack of mistrust: The workings of cooperation and relational signaling in contractual relationships. Journal of Management & Governance, 4(2), 11-33.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lowry, P., Roberts, T., Romano, N., Cheney, P., & Hightower, R. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Research, 631-661.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Minnaar, R. A., van Veen-Dirks, P. M., Vosselman, E., & Zahir-ul-Hassan, M. K. (2017). A relational perspective on the contract-controll-trust nexus in an interfirm relationship. Management
Accounting Research, 34, 30-41.
Minnaar, R., van Veen-Dirks, P., Vosselman, E., & Zahir-ul-Hassan, M. K. (2010). Control, relational signalling and trust building in an inter-firm relationship: field study reflections. 7th
Conference on New Directions in Management Accounting (pp. 1-24). Brussels, Belgium:
Radboud University Nijmegen.
Mizruchi, M. S., Stearns, L. B., & Fleischer, A. (2011). Getting a bonus: Social networks,
25
Moers, F. (2005). Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 67-80.
Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 77-86.
Prendergast, C. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(1), 7-63.
Qualtrics. (2019, may 6). More powerful insights across your entire organisation. Retrieved from Qualtrics.Xm:
https://www.qualtrics.com/nl/lp/brand-demo-request/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=brand+exact+nl&campaign id=789362366&utm_content=&adgroupid=68041558015&utm_keyword=qualtrics&utm_ter m=qualtrics&matchtype=e&device=c&placement=&network=g&cre
Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human relations, 15(1), 3-15. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
Saner, T., & Eyüpoglu, S. Z. (2012). The age and job satisfaction relationship in higher education.
Behavioral Sciences, 55, 1020-1026.
Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of trust. Association for Psychological Science,
16(5), 264-268.
Singh, P., Loncar, N., & Déom, E. (2010). Pay satisfaction, Job satisfaction and turnover intent.
Relations industrielles, 65(3), 470-490.
Stringer, C., Didham, J., & Theivananthampillai, P. (2011). Motivation, pay satisfaction and job satisfaction of front-line employees. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(2), 161-179.
van Rinsum, M., & Verbeeten, F. (2012). The impact of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on public sector managers' motivation. Accounting and Business Research, 42(4), 377-396.
Vroom, V. D. (1983). Management and Motivation. London: Penguin UK.
26
Zajonc, R. B. (1968, September). The attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and
27
Appendix A: Response rate
Companies contacted Companies cooperated
Surveys sent Answers received Response
rate 1 Gasunie 1 23 16 70% 2 GEON 1 7 7 100% 3 Provincie Friesland 1 5 2 40% 4 Voestalpine Polynorm 1 1 1 100% 5 Meacasa 1 3 0 0% 6 Resato 1 12 1 8%
7 Unknown (others) N.A. 24 22 92%
28
Appendix B: Survey questions
The following table shows the survey questions asked to the respondents. The questions shown in italics were not used to compute the final construct variable. Only the questions relevant to this study are shown.
Construct Source of original
item
Question asked Translation in
English
Control variables (Carvajal, Popovici, & Hardigan, 2018)
Wat is uw geslacht? What is your gender? Control variables (Saner & Eyüpoglu,
2012)
Tot welke leeftijdscategorie behoort u?
Which age group do you belong to?
Control variables Wat is uw hoogst
behaalde
opleidingsniveau?
What is your highest achieved education level?
Control variables In welke sector bent u
werkzaam?
In which sector do you operate?
Control variables (Gibbs M. , Merchant, Van der Stede, & Vargus, 2004)
Wat is de grootte van het bedrijf waar u voor werkt?
What is the size of the company you work for?
Trust (Read, 1962) In hoeverre heeft u het
vertrouwen dat beslissingen van uw leidinggevende gerechtvaardigd zijn door andere overwegingen, wanneer de beslissing niet in uw belang geweest is? Superiors at times must make decisions which seem to be against the interest of their subordinates. When this happens to you as a subordinate, how much trust do you have that your
superior’s decision is justified by other considerations?
Trust (Read, 1962) In hoeverre verwacht u
dat uw leidinggevende acties zal ondernemen ter bevordering van uw belang?
Does your superior take advantage of opportunities that come up to further your interest by his actions and decisions?
Trust (Read, 1962) In hoeverre heeft u het
gevoel dat uw leidinggevende u volledig op de hoogte houdt (informeert) over zaken die u aangaan?
How confident do you feel that your superior keeps you fully and frankly informed about things that might concern you?
Trust (Read, 1962) In hoeverre voelt u
zich vrij om problemen te bespreken met uw
29
leidinggevende zonder angst voor uw eigen positie?
have in your job without jeopardizing your position or having it ‘held against’ you later on?
Job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1974)
Hoe tevreden bent u met uw werkzekerheid (zekerheid van het behouden van uw baan/positie)?
How satisfied are you with the following aspect of your job: the amount of job security I have?
Job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1974)
Hoe tevreden bent u met het sociaal contact tijdens het werk?
How satisfied are you with the following aspect of your job: the social contact during work?
Job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1974)
Hoe tevreden bent u met de hoeveelheid support en begeleiding van uw
leidinggevende?
How satisfied are you with the following aspect of your job: the amount of support and guidance I receive from my supervisor? Job satisfaction (Hackman &
Oldham, 1974)
Hoe tevreden bent u met de persoonlijke groei en ontwikkeling afkomstig van uw werk?
How satisfied are you with the following aspect of your job: the amount of personal growth and
development I get in doing my job? Job satisfaction (Nagy, 2002) Hoe tevreden bent u
met uw
werktevredenheid in totaliteit?
How satisfied are you with your job in general?
Job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1974)
Hoe tevreden bent u met de hoogte (niveau) van uw salaris?
How satisfied are you with the following aspect of your job: the amount of pay benefits I receive?
Contact (Gibbs M. ,
Merchant, Van der Stede, & Vargus, 2004)
Hoeveel procent van uw gemiddelde werkdag ziet u uw leidinggevende (direct en indirect contact, bijvoorbeeld het langslopen van de leidinggevende)?
How many percent per average day do you see your supervisor (direct and indirect contact, for example walking past your supervisor)?
Subjective performance evaluation
(Moers, 2005) Ik word beoordeeld op mijn competenties
I am evaluated on my competences
Subjective performance evaluation
(Moers, 2005) Deze evaluatie maatstaven worden voornamelijk gebruikt tijdens mijn beoordelingsgesprek: kwaliteitsverbetering These performance measures are mostly used during my performance
30
van mijn geleverde dienst
Subjective performance evaluation
(Moers, 2005) Deze evaluatie maatstaven worden voornamelijk gebruikt tijdens mijn beoordelingsgesprek: Voldoende gebruik gemaakt van beschikbare middelen These performance measures are mostly used during my performance
evaluation: good use of available resources
Subjective performance evaluation
(Baker, Gibbons, & Murphy, 1994) Deze evaluatie maatstaven worden voornamelijk gebruikt tijdens mijn beoordelingsgesprek: Mijn bijdrage aan innovatieve oplossingen
These performance measures are mostly used during my performance evaluation: My contribution to innovative solutions Subjective performance evaluation
(Baker, Gibbons, & Murphy, 1994) Deze evaluatie maatstaven worden voornamelijk gebruikt tijdens mijn beoordelingsgesprek: Mijn betrokkenheid met de organisatie These performance measures are mostly used during my performance evaluation: my cooperativeness in the organisation Subjective performance evaluation
(Baker, Gibbons, & Murphy, 1994) Deze evaluatie maatstaven worden voornamelijk gebruikt tijdens mijn beoordelingsgesprek: mijn betrouwbaarheid These performance measures are mostly used during my performance evaluation: my dependableness Objective performance evaluation
(Moers, 2005) Ik word beoordeeld op specifieke prestatiemaatstaven I am evaluated on specific performance criteria Objective performance evaluation
(Moers, 2005) Deze evaluatie maatstaven worden voornamelijk gebruikt tijdens mijn
beoordelingsgesprek: mijn werkprestaties in vergelijking met het budget
These performance measures are mostly used during my performance evaluation: my performance compared to the budget Objective performance evaluation
(Moers, 2005) Deze evaluatie maatstaven worden voornamelijk gebruikt tijdens mijn
beoordelingsgesprek: percentage van mijn afwezigheid
These performance measures are mostly used during my performance evaluation: my absenteeism Objective performance evaluation
(Moers, 2005) Deze evaluatie maatstaven worden voornamelijk gebruikt tijdens mijn
beoordelingsgesprek:
These performance measures are mostly used during my performance
