The Implication of Management

7.2.1. The High Quality of The Team Manager and Member Exchange Relationships will Enhance The Member's Satisfaction with The Performance Appraisal

The conclusion ofthis study explains that the team managers and member's exchange relationships can increase the member's satisfaction with the performance appraisal. The high exchange relationships can promote 甘u泣，

emotion and loyalty, and managers use this transformation of leadership to improve exchange relationships (Cogliser and Schriesheim, 2000; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), In summary, the establishment of good exchange relationships between the manager and the employee would enable the employee to achieve more and enjoy a higher degree of satisfaction. When the team managers and the member establish the exchange relationships, the manager must promote bilateral relationships and not just to let the employee obtaining good performance which in

仙rn causes the team member satisfaction with performance appraisals. But it should be via the exchange relationships to enhance the bilateral communication and trust which will then promote the employee' s performance appraisal satisfaction. Wang et al. (2005) proposed that the transformation of leadership is helpful to the development of exchange relationships, and the company should develop and promote the relationships between the team managers and members By promoting the bilateral relationship, the member's satisfaction with performance appraisals will be increased. In addition, the study has found that most members are not satisfied with the performance appraisal because the

152 Exploring A1ultilevel Perspective of Leader-member Exchange relevant

toPe吃(ormanceAppraisa/ Satiφction

employee is unable to obtain immediate and satisfactory information. Neither pa前y

is willing to discuss or draw up an improvised plan based on performance. This leads to the member's dissatisfaction with the performance appraisal session However, the manager is the important source of information of members' performance (Dobbins, Cardy, and Platz-Vieno, 1990), If the manager can establish the exchange relationships, then both sides should be able to discuss achievements information. The manager can give moderate feedback on the employee' s performance

7.2.2. To Understand and Encourage The Team Members to Show Feedback-seeking Behavior

This study was commenting on the member's feedback-seeking behavior by the manager. However, there is different cognition in feedback-seeking behavior. Hence, the manager should listen to the employees, and provide the feedback-seeking behavior. According to Lam, Huang and Snape (2007) the manager should understand the reason for the member's feedback-seeking behavior. This enables the manager to give feedback. In the performance appraisal, it is also necessa可 for the employee to inquire about his or her perforrnance. During the important meeting, the manager should propose to discuss together with the employee, carries on the self-criticism on present situation of the present performance system operation and carefully examine whether there is the necessity to ca口y on the achievements 個rget and revision and adjustment of the system. Because of the unimpeded communication, the manager and employee's enjoy mutual trust and communication which will then promotes the employee's satisfaction with the performance appraisal.

7.2.3. Besides Emphasizing The Team Managers and Member's Exchange Relationships

,

One Must Take Note of The Transparency and Fairness of The Performance Policy Decision Making

This study emphasizes the performance appraisal process wherein team managers establish good exchange relationships with their members. Such exchange relationship promote satisfaction with performance appraisals (Elick缸，

Chiao Da Management Review Vol. 30 No. 1, 2010 153

Levy, and Hall, 2006; Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995), but the procedural justice c1imate still had cross-leve1 direct effect influence upon the performance appraisal satisfaction. The study has the same viewpoint with Levy and Williams (2004) on the emphasis of performance appraisal upon the social context. The team managers should take note of the procedural just c1imate, to let the members participate in the establishment of goals, and accept feedback methods. This promotes transparency and the employees' sense of fairness. According to the research (Liao and Rupp, 2005), a management training plan will promote fairness. As Mossholder, Bennett and Martin (1998) suggest, top management should incorporate impression management and social viewpoint in training activities, and unify the just behavior and organization's functions. The member's satisfaction with performance appraisals will thereby be promoted

7.3.

The Research Limitation and Future Research Suggestions 7.3.1. Lack ofRemarkable Research Findings

The lack of remarkably cross-level result is a limitation of the study Although the re1ationships between the individual-leve1 LMX and the satisfaction with performance appraisals are too intense, this will have different influences upon the relationships between the individual-level LMX and the performance appraisal satisfaction, but to avoid the findings falling into the cultural context-like self-explanation, we namely declare in the research the Western situation where it has the unique influence on the Chinese community. This study also proposes the reasons that limit the findings

First, the team is too small to constitute the parameter estimation (Maas and

H瓜， 2004), Second, although the Hierarchical Linear modeling analysis (HLM) may construct the pattern, processing different level variable related influence, but it will not integrate the error within the variable in the measurement. This measuring error creates the instability of measurement which might weaken the statistical result. This was because of the inevitable limitation of measurement research tools. Third, because the samples were retransmitted by the manager, the obtained sample material lacks the extremism which will reduce the interactive effect of the examination power (Erdogan, Liden, and Kraimer, 2006), In this

154 Exploring Mu/tilevel Perspective of Leader-member ^Exchange relevant

的 PerformanceAppraisa/ S，αtl扮ction

sample, the manager was chosen to distribute the questionnaires. After carefully examining the analyzed data, it revealed that the manager and the employee's exchange relationships also have the lower average score with the employee's performance appraisal satisfaction, and the population mean score ranged between ordinary to satisfaction (is siωated between 3 points to 4 points), Therefore, the variation should not have inf1uenced the findings, thus the third party in the fu仙re

may replace the step of providing the questionnaires. The other relatively low procedural justice of ICC (2) value, indicates a similarity with the team in the justice climate where the possible reason for sampling object from identical industry, and this industry has the similar characteristic in the achievements inspection procedure (Chatman and Jehn, 1994), B1iese (2000) also thought 由atthe

low ICC (2) value is difficuIt to present the team-Ievel variable result. The HLM measurement has the possibility of causing the cross-Ievel findings of this study to be unremarkable

7.3.2 The Inferential Cause and Effect

When the impact of the cross timing performance appraisal is considered, the causality of performance appraisal cause and the effect will only then be able to be clearer (Elicker, Levy, and HaIl, 2006), therefore, this study in causes and effects inferential is slightly insufficient. During the cross section, this study took earlier period of performance appraisals as the control variable and after removed that on the explanation power to discuss whether the current period of PAS wiII change. Furthermore, according to the idea of Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), the meaning of LMX lies in the promotion of exchange relationships which will then promote the employee's attitude and the behavior. Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss the current period of exchange relationships of the team manager and the employee on PAS

7.3.3. The Problems ofThe Common Method Variation (CMV)

The measurement of each individual variable is based on the self-report of employees except feedback-seeking behavior. Through of test of CMV (Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995), the result showed the muIti-factors (CFI = 0.965;

Chiao Da Alanagement Rel'iew均l. 30 No. 1, 2010 155

RMSEA = 0.068) has better fit then the single-factor (CFI = 0.733; RMSEA =

0.252), This study has found that CMV should not have the oversized influence on

the findings. This study also referred to Liao and Rupp (2005) , by aggregating average individual consciousness to team level, and operated organizational level variable (for example team-level L1αas well as justice c1imate), to eliminate the possibility of perception inflation due to the reason of the self-report from the employee. According to Keeping and Levy (2000) research, the satisfaction with performance appraisals will not be influenced by positive and negative affection of method ofvariation. Obviously CMV should not have the influence on the findings which also enhance the credibility ofthese findings

7.4. Future Research

7.4.1 Use Other Ways to Administrate The Questionnaire

The study used convenience sampling as research design and contacted the executive to administer the questionnaire. A1though it is anonymous, enc10sed and filled in an envelope, the administered staff and their executives are highly interactive. It is difficult to get the bigger variation sample because of the sample itself being with a certain degree exchange relationship and performance appraisal

satisfactionσ'AS)， Perhaps the questionnaire can be passed through a third pa此y

(such as Human Resource Department of 由is Company), then it will get a bigger variation sample to avoid social desirability caused by the reason of that members cater to the expectation of the executive because of executive administering the quest^lOnnalfe

7.4.2. Using Longitudinal Research Design

This study adopts the way of the cross section research design, and may exert an influence on the inference of the causality of each variable in this study In this study, identical exchange relationship established by team executive and member will influence justice consciousness that team member shares. Though the inference of the foundation of LMX theoretically is based on exchange relationship behavior among staffs and executives mainly, but it still lacks the evidence of causality. Hence, Liao and Rupp (2005) and Jawahar (2006) also

156 Exploring Alu/tilevel Perspective of Leader-member Exchange relevanl

10 Pe吃(ormanceAppraisal Satiφction

thought that it is better to adopt the longitudinal research designed, to explore the relationship development of team's executive and member, the impact on stafPs work:ing attitude, team's atmosphere on different time phase. Jawahar(2006) adopted this way and used longitudinal research design to process 由e verification and discussion of causality. Hence, the longitudinal PAS should be considered and probed into thoroughly in the fu仙re

7.4.3. Consider The Team Sample of The Particular Type

This study regards team as the research object, and the definition of team is referre"d by George (1990), collect the general job team of the science and technology industry because of its analogizing in order to inference the resuIt to general work team. However, there may exist the difference for the interactive situation of team's executive and member and present performance appraisal depending on 咐他er team style is particularly short-term team (such as short-term project team), Moreover, Kozlowsk:i and Bell (2003) proposed the team-oriented organization that would be an approach for fu仙reresearch

7.3.4. The Other Measuring Methods Regarding Team

This study referred Chan (1998)' s sharing core content method which is to aggregate the perception of each individual to team level by caIculating indicator rwg (j), The team LMX measured in this study and justice c1imate, all come from member's personal self- feeling, through social interaction to form collective experience, atmosphere then influence the team. The way is also adopted by Liao and Rupp (2005), and the inference of team's variables of this study, all stem from the individuallevel expanding to the team level. According to the suggestion regarding multilevel analytical unit of Lin and Peng (2006), there is another method to deal with share unit variable called “referent-shift model"

(Chan, 1998) that moves individual reference point to team or organization level.

For example, some items of Lin and Peng (2006)' s questionnaire," the employees in an organization who have right to propose suggestion about their management system “then move the reference point to other colleagues' within the organization. Therefore, future studies should be based on 出e。可 as a

Chiao Da Afanagement Review 均1. 30 No. 1, 2010 157

guideline and adopt different ways to measure variables according to the definitions ofvariables described within this study.

8. Reference

Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988), “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach," Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423

Ashford, S. 1. and Black, 1. S. (1996),“Proactivity During Organizational Entry:

The Role of Desire for Control," Journal of Applied P.勻后的logy， 81(2), 199-214.

Ashford, S. J. and Ts山， A. S. (1991), “Self-regulation for Managerial Effectiveness: The Role of Active Feedback Seeking," Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 251 品。

Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. (1986)

“

The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182

Blau, G (1999), “Testing the Longitudinal Impact of Work Variables and Performance Appraisal Satisfaction on Subsequent Overall Job Satisfaction," Human Relαtions， 5月8)， 1099-1113

Bliese, P. D. (2000), “Within-group Agreement, Non-Independence, And Reliability: Implication for Data Aggregation and Analysis. In K. 1. Klein and S. W. 1. Kozlowski(Eds.)," Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods ill OrganizlαtiOIlS (pp. 249-381), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Boswell, W. R. and Boudre側， J. W. (2002),“Separating the Developmental and Evaluative Performance Appraisal U賊" Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3),391-412

Bowl的， M. L. and Coates, G (1993),“Image and Substance: The Management of Performance as Rhetoric or Reality?" Personnel Review, 22(2), 3-21

Callister, R. R., Kramer, M. W. and Turban, D. N. (1999), “F eedback seeking

158 Exploring Afultilevel Perspective ofLeader-member Exchange relevant

toPe吃(ormanceAppraisal Satisfaction

Following Career Transition," Academy of Manαgement Journal, 42(4), 429-438

Cardy, R. L. and Dobbins, G. H. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives. Cincinatti, OH: Southwestern Publishing

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M. and Le可九 P. E. (1998), “Participation in the Perfonnance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Field Investigations," Journal of Applied Psychology， 的 (4)，

615-633

Chan, D. (1998),“Functional Relations Among Constructs in the Same Content Domain At Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models," Journα1 of Applied Psychology, 83(2),234-246.

Chatman, J. A. and Jehn, K. A. (1994), “Assessing the Relationship between Industry Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different Can You be?" Academy ofManagement Journal, 37(3), 522-553.

Cogliser, C. C. and Schriesheim, C. A. (2000) ，屯xploringWork Unit Context and Leader-Member Exchange: A Mu1ti-Level Perspective," Journal of

Orglαllizational Behavior, 21(5), 487-511

Cohen, S. G. and Bailey, D. E. (1997), “What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research From the Shop F100r to the Executive Suite,"

JournalofManagement, 23(3),239-290.

Colquitt, 1. A. (2004),“ Does the Justice of the One Interact With the Justice of the Many? Reactions to Procedural Justice in Teams," Journal of Applied

P句Jchology， 的(4)， 633-646.

Deluga, R. G. (1994),“Supervisor Trust Building, Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Journal of Occup的onal and

OrglαmzαtlOnαIP矽chology， 的(4)， 315-326

Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2001), “The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings," Organization Science, 12(4), 450-467

Dobbins, G. 旺， Cardy, R. L. and Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990), “A contingency Approach to appraisal satisfaction: An Initial Investigation of the Joint Effects of Organizational Variables and Appraisal Characteristics," Journαl ofManagem側" 16(3),619-632

Chiao Da A1anagement ^{Review 均1.} 30No.1^, 2010 159

Elick缸， J. D., Levy, P. E. and Hall, R. 1. (2006), "The Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the Performance Appraisal Process," Journal of ^{Manageme肘，}

32(4),531-551

Erdogan, 8., Liden, R. C. and Kraimer, M. L. (2006), “Justice and Leader-Member Exchange: The 孔10derating Role of Organizational Culture," Academy ofλ也nagementJournal, 49(2), 395-406.

Fairhurst, G T (1993), “The Leader-Member Exchange Patterns of Women Leaders in Industry: A Discourse Analysis," Communication Monograph, 60(4), 321-351

Fletcher, C. (1993), “Appraisal: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone?" Personnel

Manαrgeme肘， 23(1)， 34-37

F ord, L. R. and Seers, A (2006), “Relational Leadership and Team Climate Pitting Differentiation Versus Agreement," Leadel幼ip Quarterly, 17(3), 258-270

George, 1. M. (1990),“Personality, Affe仗， and Behavior in Groups," Joumal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107-116

Giles, W. F. and Mossholder, K W. (1990),“Employee Reactions to Contextual and Session Components of Performance Appraisal," Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4),371-377

Gilson, L. L. and Shall 句， C. E. (2004),“A little Creativity Goes A Long Way: An Examination of Team's Engagement in Creating Processes," Journal of Management, 30(4),453-470

Graen, G B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1991),“The Transformation of Professionals into Self-Managing and Partially Self-Designing Contribution: Towards A Theory ofLeader-Making," Journal ofManαrgement Systems, 3(3), 49-54 Graen, G B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-Based Approach to

Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) the。可 of

Leadership over 25 Years: Applying A Mu1ti-Level Multi-Domain Perspective," Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Hackman, J. R. (1992),“Group Influence on Individuals in Organizations," In M D. Dunnette, and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of lindustrial

Organizatiol1α1 Psychology (pp. 199-267), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

160 Exploring A1ultilevel Perspective of Leader-member Exchange relevant

10 Performance Appraisal Sati在向ction

Psychologists Press

Hofmann, D. A. (1997),“An Overview ofthe Logic and Rationale ofHierarchical Linear Models," Journal ofManageme肘， 23(6), 723-744.

Hofmann, D. A. and Gavin, M. B. (1998),“Centering Decisions in Hierarchical Linear Models: Implications for Research in Organizations," Journal of

Mαnagement， 24(5),623-641

Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W. and Ke汀， S. (1996), “Moderator Variable in Leadership Research," Academy ofManagement Review, 11(1),88-102.

James, L. R. (1982),“Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement,"

Joumalof Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219-229

Jawah缸" I.弘M. (20∞06)，

Feedbad仇k，丸，"Journal of Lαωbor Research, 11(2)， 2 日 -236

Keeping, L. M. and Levy, P. E. (2000), “Performance Appraisal Reactions Measurement, Modeling, and Method Bias," Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708-723

Kim, T., Cable, D. and Kim, S. (2005), “Socialization Tac世的， Employee Proactivity, and Person-Organization Fit," Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232-241.

Kirkman, B. L. and Rosen, B. (1999),“Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerrnent," Academy of A也nagement

Joumal, 42(1), 58-74

Konovs旬， M. (2000), “Understanding Procedural Justice and Its Impact on Business Organizations," Joumal of Manα'geme肘，26(3), 489-511

Korsgaard, M. A. and Roberson, L. (1995),“Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation: The Role of Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Voice in Performance Appraisal Decisions^," Journal of Manageme肘 21(旬，

657-669

Kozlowski, S. W. 1. and Bell, B. S. (2003), “Work Groups and Teams in Organizations," In W. C. Borman, and D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and orgjαnizationα1 Psychology (pp. 333-375), New York, NY: John Wiley

Chiao Da Management Re\何w Vol. 30 No. 1,2010 161

Kuvaas, B. (2006),“Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Employee Outcomes: Mediating and Moderating Roles of Work Motivation," Jnternational Journal of Human Resource Manαrgement， 17(3), 504-522

Lam, W., Huang, X. and Snape, E. (2007), “Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Leader-Member Exchange: Do Supervisor-Attributed Motives Matter?"

Academy ofManagement Journal, 50(2),348-363.

Levy, P. E. and Williams, J. R. (2004), "The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future," Journal of

M仰的'geme肘'， 30(6)， 881-905

Liao, H. and Chua嗯， A. (2007),“Transforming Service Employees and Climate:

A Multilevel, Multisource Examination of Transformational Leadership in Building Long-Term Service Relationship," Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 1006-1019.

Liao, H. and Rupp, D. E. (2005), “The Impact of Justice Climate and Justice Orientation on Work Outcomes: A Cross-Level Multifoci Framework,"

Journalof Applied P矽chology， 90(2), 242-256

Liden, R. c., Wanye, S. J. and Stilwell, D. (1993),“A Longitudinal Study on the Early Development of Leader-Member Exchange," Joumal of Applied

P矽chology， 78(2), 662-674

Lin, C. C.,and Peng, T. K. (2006)， “孔1ultilevel Research in Management:

Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Issues in Level of Analysis,"

Journal of Manαrgeme刑， 23 向)， 649-675.(Chinese) Ma悅as丸， C. J. M. and Hox咒，J.J. (ο20∞04)，

on 扎1u叫11t位ilevel Parameters and Their Standard Er叮Tor悶s，" Compu的tional SIαtistics and Da的 Anαlysis， 46(3),427-440.

Meyer, H. H. (1991), “A Solution to the Performance Appraisal Feedback Enigma," AcαdemyofMal的'gementExecuti間， 5(1), 68-76

Morrison, E. W. (1993), “Newcomer Information seeking: Exploring types, Modes," Sources, and Outcomes. Academy of Mαnagement Joumal, 36(3), 557-589

Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N. and Martin, C. L. (1998),“A Multilevel Analysis of Procedural Justice Context," Journal of Organiz，αtional Behavior, 19(2),

162

131-141.

Exploring Multilevel Perspecli^l'e of Leader-member Exchange relevant to Performance Appraisal Satis.，戶ction

Murphy, K. R. and Cleveland, 1. N. (1995), Underst，αnding Perjormance

Appr^αisal: ， Social, Orglαmzαtional and Goαl-Based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Nachman, S., Dansereau, F. and Naughton, T. J. (1983),“Negotiating Latitude: A Within- and Between-Groups Analysis of a Key Construct in Vertical Dyad

Nachman, S., Dansereau, F. and Naughton, T. J. (1983),“Negotiating Latitude: A Within- and Between-Groups Analysis of a Key Construct in Vertical Dyad

在文檔中 Exploring Multilevel Perspective of Leader-member Exchange Relevant to Performance Appraisal Satisfaction (頁 31-43)