Chiao Da Alanagement Review 均1.30 No. 1,2010 pp. 121-163
團隊多層次觀點探討團隊領導者與部
屬交換關條對績效考核滿意度的影響
Exploring Multilevel Perspective of Leader-member
Exchange Relevant to Performance Appraisal Satisfaction
洪贊凱 Tsang-Kai Hung
國立彰化師範大學 人力資源、管理研究所
National Changhua University ofEducation, Graduate Institute ofHuman Resource Management
蔡佳盛 Chia-Sheng Tsai
國立彰化師範大學 人力資源管理研究所
National Changhua University ofEducation, Graduate Institute ofHuman Resource Management 摘要:高效能的績效考核能增進組織績效，而提升績效考核滿意度最能夠增 進績效考核效能，且團隊為主的工作設計廣為企業採用，因此團隊成員績效 考核滿意度便為本研究之焦點。團隊主管與成員發展的交換關像是否會影響 成員績致考核滿意度，且雙方的交換關像是否會影響成員尋求回饋行為與團 隊正義氣候，故本研究將研究目的歸納如下: 1 探討個人層次領導者與部屬 交換關靜、 (LMX)對尋求回備行為與考核滿意度之影響; 2.探討尋求回饋行為 對個人層次 LMX 與考核滿意度關靜、之中介效果;3.探討團隊層次 LMX 對團 隊正義氣候與考核滿意度之影響;4 探討正義氣候對團隊層次 LMX 與成員考 核滿意度之中介效果; 5 探討正義氣候對個人層次 LMX 與考核滿意度關靜、之 干擾效果。本研究自經濟部商工登記資料庫中之高科技公司，還取工作團隊 主管與成員進行調查，實得有效樣本 243 份，有效回收率為 54% '統計分析 採描述性分析、驗證性因素分析以及階層線性棋式。研究結果發現:1.個人 層次 LMX 對尋求回備行為、績效面談與績效制度滿意度有正向影響; 2.尋求 回饋行為對績效面談滿意度有正向影響 ;3.尋求回饋行為對個人層次 LMX 與
1 Corresponding author: Graduate Institute of Human Resource Manageme瓜，National Changhua
122 Exploring Multilevel Perspective ofLeader-member Exchange rele\叩1t
to Performance Appraisal Satisfactiol1
績效面談滿意度之關靜、具有「部分中介」效果 ; 4 程序型正義氣候對績效面
談與績妓制度滿意度其跨層次的影響效果。
關鍵詞:領導者與部屬交換關條;績效考核滿意度;尋求回饋行為;正義氣 候
Abstract:High effective perfonnance appraisal could increase organizational performance, and it was the best way to increase etTectiveness by enhancing perfonnance appraisal satisfaction. Moreover, team-oriented job design has been
widely adopted by corporations; team-member's perfonnance appraisal
satisfaction became highlight of this study. Did the exchange relationship developed between team leader and team member intluence appraisal satisfaction? Did the relationship would intluence team member's feedback seeking behavior and team justice climate? Hence, this study aims to discuss 1. the etTect of individual-level leader-member exchange on feedback seeking behavior and appraisal satisfaction; 2. the mediating etTect of feedback seeking behavior on individual-LMX and appraisal 叫isfaction; 3. the etTect of tea恥LMX on justice climate and appraisal satisfaction; 4. the mediating effect of justice climate on team-LMX and appraisal satisfaction; 5. the moderating effect of justice climate on individual-LMX and appraisal satisfaction. In this study, the target samples were the work teams from the companies of the industry database, and 243 valid
questionnaires were responded. The valid response rate was 54%. The valid questionnaires were empiricaIly analyzed using the method of hierarchical linear modeling. The result revealed 1. individual L~主X has a positive etTect on feedback seeking behavior, perfonnance session and system satisfaction; 2 feedback seeking behavior has a positive effect on session satisfaction; 3 feedback seeking behavior has partial mediating effect on individual LMX and session satisfaction ; 4. procedural justice climate has a direct etTect on session and system satisfaction.
Keywords: Leader-member exchange; Perfonnance appraisal satisfaction; Feedback seeking behavior; Justice climate
Chiao Da A1anagemenl Review lól. 30 No. 1, 2010 123
1.
Research Background
Due to the rapid changes of business environment and intense competition,
enterprises have adopted a f1attened structure. Gilson and Shalley (2004) and
Kozlowsk:i and Bell (2003) thought that team-based operation is widely used by
business community because of its elasticity and efficiency. Employees have an
important effect on their organization's achievements are valued (Prahalad and
Hamel, 1990), A good inspection of performance can improve employees'
performance while promoting the performance of the organization itself. Boswell
and Boudreau (2002) regarded the performance appraisal as one of the most important human resources management practices in an organization. If the
employee doesn't have a positive experience with evaluation, then any assessment
system will fail (Cardy and Dobbins, 1994; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995), And
that is as most often mentioned by researchers regarding the response of
inspection by satisfaction with performance appraisals (Giles and Mossholder,
1990; Keeping and Levy, 2000), The satisfaction with performance appraisals
stresses 出e employee's at世tude. Higher satisfaction with performance appraisals
indicates that the employee had a better higher chance of participation in the
organizational decision-mak:ing process and more performance information from
top management as well. Therefore, the promotion of employee satisfaction with
his or her evaluation can increase the effectiveness of the inspection (Levy and
Williams, 2004), A1though all of these arguments emphasize the significance of
satisfaction with the performance appraisal, the literature reveals that most of the
employees of the organization are dissatisfied wi出 it(Bowles and Coates, 1993;
Fletcher, 1993; Mey缸， 1991)， This will have adverse effects on the organization
First, the performance appraisal is unable to achieve the anticipated impact
upon the employee's behavior as well as the aim of fu仙re development. Second,
it reduces the employee's job satisfaction (Poon, 2004), job
performance(Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and d' Amico, 2001), and organizational
commitment (Kuvaas, 2006), Dissatisfied employees are the most likely to leave
the company (Kuva缸， 2006; Poon, 2004), Therefore, this study is to explain how
124 Exploring A1ullilel'el Perspectil'e of Leader-member Exchange relevanl 10 Performance Appraisal Sati在向clion
interview the team members about their performance (Elicker, Levy, and Hall, 2006), Although the leader can affect the members' satisfaction with their evaluations, the leader is not always willing to give feedback. This undermines team members' confidence in the evaluation. How should team leaders increase their employees' satisfaction with the evaluation of their performance? Elicker et αl. (2006) proposed that their exchange relationships can increase satisfaction with the performance appraisa1. Levy and Williams (2004) agreed that emphasis should be put on the interaction between the inspector (leader) and the person being inspected (member) and they also claim th剖 the evolution of exchange relations originates from the one-to-one exchange relationship, and then develops into consistent exchange relations with the team (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), This study discusses the impact of exchange relationships on satisfaction with performance appraisa1. From the theoretical viewpoint of the superior and the subordinate's exchange relationships, the a1teration of the member's attitude and behavior by the team leaders via exchange relationships is emphasized by researchers(Erdogan, Liden, and Kraim缸， 2006; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), Therefore, this study makes three arguments. : First, individual-level pa此， whether can exchange the member's initiative to feedback-seeking behavior when the leader and the member developed the one-to-one exchange relationships, (Lam, Huang, and Snape, 2007; VandeWalle, Ganesan, Challagalla, and Brown, 2000), to define the role which it acts and reduces the uncertainty. Second, team-level pa伐， whether all the team members do feel the common fair treatment when team managers and members developed uniform exchange relationships, then exchange higher team justice climate(Naumann and Bennett, 2000), and has a direct impact on satisfaction with performance appraisals via the Colquitt(2004) third-party justice outcome. Third, the cross-level pa此， the justice climate is what the team members feel as justice environment (Schneider, White, and Paul, 1998), whether this team's contex仙al factor acts as the promotion of a situation factor (Howell, Dorfman, and Kerr, 1996), will produce the cross-level moderating effects upon the exchanges of relationships and the satisfaction with performance appraisals to the leader and the subordinate. In
Chiao Da Afanagement Review 均1. 30 No. 1,2010 125
study of the cross-Ievel pa位em would contribute to the definition and application of performance appraisal satisfaction (Figure 1),
T臼血 level Individual level Figure 1. Research Structure Justice climate H9 H5 Feedback seeking behavior
1.1.
Performance Appraisals SatisfactionPerformance appraisals satisfaction (PAS) is pa此 of the response to performance appraisals. A1though the performance appraisal requires some adjustment following the different organizational characteristic, the members of organization are not satisfied with the implementation ofthe performance appraisal (Bowles and Coates, 1993), Based on previous research, the evolution of the performance appraisal satisfaction is also transformed from viewpoint of previous emphasis on strengthening the measuring into taking serious consideration of the reaction of the person appraised (team members) towards performance appraisal The measurement of members' satisfaction with performance appraisals would enable one to understand their reaction to those appraisals. The satisfaction with
126 Exploring A1ultilevel Perspective of Leader-member Exchange rele\仰t
10 Performance Appraisa/ Sati扮ctiOI1
perforrnance appraisals assists in examining whether the operation of the perforrnance appraisal is normal (Cardy and Dobbins, 1994; Keeping and Levy, 2000), Cawley, Keeping and Levy (1998) performed meta-analysis upon the perforrnance appraisal satisfaction; the outcome revealed that the satisfaction with perforrnance appraisals of interview and satisfaction with performance appraisal system are the most commonly used measures of satisfaction with performance appraisals. Elicker, Levy and Hall (2006) and Giles and Mossholder (1990) adopted these concepts. By synthesizing the literature, this study discusses employees' reaction to appraisals. Based on the definition of performance appraisal satisfaction (PAS) given by Elicker, Levy and Hall(2006) perforrnance appraisals, PAS can be divided into the satisfaction with performance appraisal sessions and with perforrnance appraisal systems. Satisfaction with performance appraisal sessions means satisfaction with performance appraisals of the member upon the implementation method of interview and its content which are deployed by the leader, and satisfaction with perforrnance appraisal systems means team member's satisfaction with perforrnance appraisal
1.
2.
Leader-Member Exchange RelationshipThe concept ofthe Leader -Member Exchange Relationship (LMX) is based on the role making, the society exchange, the reciprocal benefit and fairness (Deluga, 1994), On the individuallevel, Wang et al. (2005) viewed that the team manager conveys the role expectation to the team member and the procedure of exchange reciprocal benefit between the team managers and the members in view of the role consultation on the mutual exchange relations' quality and the maturity Graen and UhI-Bien (1995) opined 由at both sides start from the con甘act-like
transactional exchange, to trusts, until there is mutual trust, respect and genuine exchange. When the leader and the subordinate developed the better exchange relationship, the Iatter wiII obtain higher trust, resources, authority, and more responsibility from the manager (Schrisheim, Neider, and Scandura, 1998; Yukl and Fu, 1999),
This study defines LMX as the procedure of exchange reciprocal benefit between team managers and memhers. The hilateral exchange relationship coupled
ChiωαoDαJ九'vf，σnage，臼'I1lηlent Rev叩w T,ól. 30 No. 1, 2010 127
with the quality of relationship, the level of ma仙d句 andthe exchange time vary Erdogan, Liden and Kraimer (2006) proposed that the LMX theory lies in the means adopted by leader in affecting the behavior of the member, Patton (I999) viewed that trust is the essential factor whether there is any exchange relationship between the manager and the employee. Lid凹， Wayne and Stilwell (1993) stated that when both sides have stable exchange relations, the member will acknowledge that the manager has ability to car可 outthe performance appraisal. Therefore, they will have more confidence in the manager. Dirks and Ferrin (2001) thought that trust has a remarkable impact upon employees' attitude. The member who has higher LMX quality will then attract more attention from the manager and will have a better performance appraisal. Those subordinates who have high quality of exchange relationships would enter into a more open communication with their manager (Elicker, Le呵， and Hall, 2006), During 出e performance sessions, the manager will convey the role expectation to the member. When both sides have the reciprocal benefit of exchange relationship, the employee will be more pleased with the outcome of the interview; if the manager and the subordinate positioned at the lower quality of exchange relationship, then both parties will lack trust in each other. Therefore, they will not regard the manager as the source of feedback and will be dissatisfied with the performance appraisaI. Thus, when trust exists, the subordinate will favor the positive reporting attitude towards the manager. By examining the employee's attitude during the performance appraisal, it was discovered that trust in the manager increases satisfaction with the performance appraisal system. When there is a better exchange relationship, the employee would have more trust in the manager (Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995), This study proposes the following hypotheses
H1: lndivi伽al-lel'elleader-memherexchange relationship has a positive in仰ct on the sati哩faction with performance appraisal. The better the exchange relationship between the team managers and member
,
the greater the satisfaction with performllnce appraisals.H1-1: lndividual-l，凹'elleader member 缸changerelationship has positive ;n哩'Jact upon the satisfaction with peφrmllnce appraisal sessio凡
128 Exploring Alultifevel Perspectil'e ofLeader-member Exchange relevant
to PerformanGe Appraisal Sa釘在向ctiol1 Hl -2: lndil'idual-lel'elleader-member α'change relationship has positil'e impact
upon the satisfaction with p叫formanceappraisal system.
At the team-level LMX, Cogliser and Schriesheim (2000) viewed that LMX only discussed the development of duali可 between the group manager and the member. However, average leadership style (ALS) posits that managers wilI
exhibit consistent behavior towards their subordinates. Nachman, Dansereau and Naughton (1983) proposed that LMX and ALS model can concurrentIy operate Cogliser and Schriesheim(2000) regarded LMX as a community phenomenon; the team members can sense that there wiII be no conf1icts between managers and employees. Ford and Seers (2006) stated that the team L孔1xrepresents the feelings of the team towards consistent exchange relationships. Although the manager wilI
develop different exchange relationships with different members, the manager wilI
be able to compromise these differences apart from aiming at providing the employee a fairer attention and opportunity. Schyns (2006) opined th剖 under the impartial viewpoint of LMX theo旬， the manager wiI1 balance the ditference in relationships within the group and maintain a more uniform exchange relationship amongst its members. Ford and Seer also viewed that the team L孔1xwiI1 develop a more effective and consistent relationship with the majority members in the organization. Therefore, this study applies Ford and Seers' definition of level of L孔。正. We propose that LMX will atfect both the individual and the organization lndividual-level LMX stresses the exchange relationships between team managers and members. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) opined th剖 the development of the bilateral relations wilI be atfected by the role formation. Fairhurst (1993) believed
th剖 themanager and the member produce ditferent exchange relationships and the
manager has communicated with the members in ditferent ways. Liao and Chuang (2007) viewed that the team exchange relationships are the state of leadership presented by the manager to the team. Exchange relationships should be common among team members (Hackman, 1992), Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) emphasized that the manager should develop relationships with subordinates and encourages all team members to develop strong exchange relationships with each other.
Chiao Da 1\1anagement Review f，也1. 30入凡。. 1， 2010 129
The study also confirms that managers influence their team and its members (Liao and Chuang, 2007; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1995; Yammarino and Bass, 1991), Therefore, when the manager developed a higher quality of exchange relationships with the team, the team member will share the excellent interactive relationship which will be helpful in enhancing member's satisfaction with performance appraisals. We may deduce that when the team senses a higher LMX, there will be positive impact upon member' s satisfaction with performance appraisals. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypotheses
H2 : The team-levelleader-member exchαnge relationships induce a positive impact upon the performance appraisal satisj泣ction， namely the member's satiφction . with pe.φrmance appraisals is higher when the team managers and members cooperate in developing higher quality of exchange relations.
H2-1: The team-levelleader-member αchange relationships induce a positive
inψact upon satisfaction with the pe份rnUlnce αrppraisals sessio紙
H2-2: The team-level leader-member exchange relationships induce a posi叭'e
in月pactupon sati.φction with the peψrnUlnce appraisals system.
1.
3.
Feedback-seeking BehaviorKim, Cable and Kim (2005) regarded the feedback-seeking behavior as part ofsense making. Ashford and Black (1996) opined that sense making can help the employee to adapt to the environment and to unanticipated change. Hence, the employees will obtain information from feedback-seeking behavior. This study uses the definition of feedback-seeking behavior by VandeWalle et al. (2000) and regards the manager as the main source of feedback-seeking behavior. The employee will inquire the manager regarding one's own job performance, the role expectation, the social behavior and other standpoints and the behavior performance
130 Exp/oring Afu/ti/eve/ Perspective ofLeader-member Exchange relevant 的 Pe吃(ormanceAppraisa/ Satiφctwn
1.3.1 The Correlation Between Individual-Level Leader-member Exchange
Relationships and The Feedback-seeking behavior
When the team managers and the member improved their exchange relationships, the manager will use those relations to assist the members in
c1arifying their roles (Callister, Kramer, and Turban, 1999; 孔10rrison, 1993), Feedback-seeking behavior is in itself a kind of communication. When the member senses a good exchange relationship, communication and coordination improve Hence, feedback-seeking behavior will increase. Although Lam, Huang and Snape (2007) argued that feedback-seeking behavior promotes relationships between the manager and the member, this study uses exchange relationships the。可
propounded by Erdogan, Liden and Kraimer (2006), They proposed that the essence of exchange relationships lies in the stimulation of member's behavior by the manager through exchange relations. The central point ofthis study is whether the high quality of exchange relationships will cause both parties to have more trust and more proactive feedback-seeking behavior. This study discusses whether the high quality of exchange relationships between the team manager and member will promote feedback-seeking behavior. As a result, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3 : The indil'idual-lel'elleader-memher αchange relationships hal'e a positil'e
impact on feedback-seeking behal'ioκ The better the relationship between the manager and the member
,
the nwre frequent the feedback-seeking behal'ior.1.3.2. The Correlation Between Feedback-seeking Behavior and Performance
Appraisal Satisfaction
Kim, Cable and Kim (2005) regarded feedback-seeking behavior as the proactive behavior. Elicker, Levy and Hall (2006) stated that the key to performance appraisallies in the team managers and the member in carrying out individual and official feedback of performance. Feedback is usually the kind of activity which the employee and the manager can perform face-to-face. Morrison (1993) and Renn and Fedor (2001) c1aimed that employees who are engaged in
Chiao Da λfanagement Review J令1. 30 No. 1,2010 131
feedback-seeking behavior have a better understanding of work-related problems By reducing the uncertainty, the role position ofthe team member is c1arified where it satisfies the member' s expectation of measuring info口nation. This will enhance the frequency of the feedback-seeking behavior apart from increasing satisfaction with the performance appraisal session. ü'Reilly (1977) considered that the member sees the manager as the vital source of information and feedback VandeWalle et al. (2000) viewed that when the manager is the object of the member's main feedback-seeking behavior, the member and the manager c1arify individual performance and social behavior. This discussion allows the member to
c1arify the performance appraisal and ensure satisfaction. This will encourage the feedback-seeking behavior that increases satisfaction with performance appraisals.
This leads to the following hypotheses:
H4 : The feedback-seeking behal'ior has a positil'e in月pactupon the performance
appraisal sati.吶ction. Sati.φction with peφrmance appraisals will be higher
if
the frequency of feedback-seeking behal'ior is higher.H4-1: The feedback-seeking behal'ior has a positil'e in:月pact upon satisfaction with thepe.φrmance appraisal session.
H4-2: The feedback-seeking behal'ior has a positil'e in伊act upon satisfaction with the pe仙~manceappraisal sys的且
According to the literature, good exchange relationships between team leaders and the subordinate encourage feedback-seeking behavior. This increases satisfaction with performance appraisal sessions and with performance appraisal systems. This study deduces that the leader and the team member increase their satisfaction with performance appraisal sessions and systems. This study proposes the following hypotheses:
H s: The 吃ffectof indil'idual-Iel'el leader-member exchange relationships on the member 's peiformance appraisal satisj詰ction is mediated through feedback seeking behal'ior.
132 Exploring A1ultilevel Perspective of Leader-member Exchange relevant to Performance Appraisal Sat吶ctiOI1
H5-1: The effect of indil'idual-lel'el leader-memher αchange relationships on the memher 's satisfaction with performance appraisal sessions is mediated through feedback seeking behal'ior.
H5-2: The ξffect of individual-l，凹'elleader-memher αchange relationships on
the member 法 satisfaction with performance appraisal systems is mediated
through feedback seeking behal'ior.
4. The Team Justice Climate
The team justice c1imate originates from the just feeling of the team members and the team justice climate was valued following the team issues (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Konovsky, 2000), Mossholder, Bennett and Martin (1998) and Naumann and Bennett (2000) c1aimed that comparing individual-level justice consciousness, the teamjustice c1imate can be used to predictjob satisfaction, work attitude, and behavior. Based on the deduction above, in the past, many researches were discussing the team members' consciousness of procedural and interactive justice. Therefore, this study considers that under the influence ofthe team society context, justice c1imate in a team and individual function of influence. This study is based on the literature on justice c1imate (Liao and Rupp, 2005; Mossholder, Bennett, and Martin, 1998), It also examines the impact of the procedural and the interactive justice c1imate on satisfaction with performance appraisals. This study uses the definitions of procedural justice and interactive justice propounded by Elicker, Levy with Hall (2006), and Chan (1998),
4.1. The Impact ofTeam-Level Leader-Member Exchange Relationships upon the Team Justice Climate
The team members' consciousness of the atmosphere is atfected by the team's context (Schneider, White, and Paul, 1998), Hackman (1992) opined that the manager's behavior will affect the team justice c1imate. Graen and Uhl-Bien
(1991) opined th剖 theteam managers and the member will develop a partnership in which team members feel a greater sense of justice. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995)
Chiao Da A1anagement Re\叩w Vol. 30 No. 1, 2010 133
thought that the manager will establish a better relationship with the team members by considering transparency and fairness in policy-making. This leads to a stronger sense of procedural justice. The viewpoint of the LMX theory lies in affecting the member's attitude and behavior via the exchange relationship, and Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) all viewed th剖 high quality of exchange relationship will have positive impact upon the team. Therefore this study adopts the viewpoint of ASA (attraction-selection-attribution), This study deduces th剖 when the team members feel the similar consciousness of justness, the justice climate will improve Therefore, the team leader-member- exchange relationship can promote interactive and the procedural justice. In summa旬， this study proposes the following hypotheses
H6 : The team-levelleader-men伽r exchange relationship h的 positil'e i呻act
upon the team justice climate. The team justice climate will be higher when them帥仙'ßnage臼r川"and members del'eloped good αchange relationships.
Hι1 : The team-level leader-memher αchange relationship has positil'e impact
upon the interactil'e justice clinUlte.
Hι2 : The team-level leader-memher exchange relationship has posi叭'e inψact upon the procedural justice clinwte.
4.2. The Impact of Team Justice Climate upon the Performance Appraisal Satisfaction
Schneider, White and Paul (1998) regarded the justice climate as the working conditions where the team members feel emo位 onal atmosphere, and Naumann and Bennett (2000) viewed that the lack ofjustice consciousness will spread within the team when the majority team members faced unfair treatments. Liao and Rupp (2005) proposed that individual attitude and the behavior will be affected by the other team members. Colquitt (2004) stated that the people will also care about third-party justice. Jawahar (2006) proposed that the member needs to interact with the manager during the performance session. Interactive justice is the consciousness of the fairness of the policy and decision maker (Cawley, Keeping,
134 Exploring Afultilevel Perspective of Leader-member Exchange relevant to Performance Appraisal S，αti是(action
and Levy, 1998; Elicker, Levy, and Hall, 2006), Therefore, the member's satisfaction with performance appraisals will be promoted when the team has high interactive justice climate. O'Reilly (1977) proposed that the manager is an important source of information. When the team has a good interactive justice climate, the member can have more communications and interaction with the manager and a better understanding as to the system of performance. Hence, the member' s sense of performance appraisal systems will be improved. The team member that sense procedural justice will realize the faimess ofthe assignment and decision-making procedure. Mossholder, Bennett and Martin (1998) proposed th剖 when the team has a high procedural justice clima妞，the members believe that they can bring benefits to the session. The member will also be satisfied with the performance interview; under the procedural justice climate, the team members will have the faith in the performance appraisa1. Hence, the procedural justice climate will enable the members to understand the performance appraisa1. In summary, this study proposes that the following hypotheses:
H 7 : The team justice climate has a positil'e inψact upon the performance
appraisal sati吶ction. Name.鈔 the sati吶ction with pe.φrn的nce
appraisals will be higher when the members sense higher team justice clinw.t，ι
H7-1 : The interactil吋usticeclimate has a positil'e i呻actupon satisfaction with
performance appraisal sessions.
H 7-2 : The procedural justice climate h的 apositil'e in司pactupon satisfaction with
performance appraisal session.
H 7-3 : The interactil'e justice climate has a posi的'einψactupon satiφction with
peφrnw.nce appraisal systems.
H 7-4 : The procedural justice cIimate has a positil'e inψact upon sati.再factionwith
Chiao Da Management Review Vol. 30 No. 1, 2010 135
4.3 The Team-Ievel Leader-member Exchange Relationship will Effect Satisfaction with Performance Appraisals Via the Mediating Effect of The Team Justice Climate.
The team-Ievel LMX can promote the satisfaction with performance appraisal sessions and satisfaction with performance appraisal systems Team-Ievel LMX shapes the team's interactive relationship and the procedural justice c1imate. The c1imate can promote satisfaction with performance appraisals
Therefore, the team-Ievel L弘1x can promote satisfaction with performance appraisal sessions and satisfaction with performance appraisal systems. This research proposes the following hypotheses
H s : The inψact of team-level leader-memher e.xchange relationship on
peφrmance appraisal satiφction is mediated through justice climat，ι
Namely
,
the relationship hetween team-level leader-memher e.xchange relationship and performance appraisal satisfaction will be higher when team members sense higher teamjustice climate.HS-l : The inψact of team-level leader-member exchange relationship on
satisfaction with perfornumce appraisal sessions is mediated through interactive justice climate.
HS-2 : The impact of team-level leader-member e.xchange relationship on
satisfaction with pe研ormance appraisal sessions is mediated through procedural justice climate.
HS-3 : The impact of team-level leader-member 缸"change relationship on
satisfaction with pe研討mance appraisal systems is mediated through interactive justice climate.
HS-4 : The i叩act of team-level leader-nωwer e.xchange relationship on
satisfaction with peφrmance appraisal systems is mediated through procedural justice climate.
136 Exploring λlultilevel Perspective 01 Leader-member Exchange relevant
toPe吃(ormanceAppraisal Sati在向ctiOI1
4.4. The Team Justice Climate will Moderate the Impact ofThe Leader Member Exchange Relationship upon The Performance Appraisal Satisfaction.
The justice climate is a community's contextual factor, and Howell, Dorfman and Kerr (1996) regards it as a factor of stimulation of situation the justice climate which is helpful in promoting the impact of the leader-member exchange relationship upon the performance appraisal satisfaction. As for the part of satisfaction with performance session, all members receive the same treatment under the interactive justice climate. Therefore, it will be helpful in strengthening the positive impact of the individual-level manager and the member exchange relationship upon the satisfaction with the performance appraisal session
In contrast, under a low interactive justice climate, the positive impact ofthe individual-level LMX upon the satisfaction with performance appraisal session is weaker. Under the higher interactive justice climate, it wiII be helpful for the team members and the managers to have the communication on the performance appraisal systems, the member wiII also have higher degree of satisfaction to the system design. Therefore, higher interactive justice climate wiII strengthen the positive impact of individual-level LMX upon satisfaction with the performance appraisal system. Under a low interactive justice climate, the positive impact of individual-level LMX upon satisfaction with the performance appraisal system is weakened when the member senses that the other people in the team are being treated unfairly. Under the higher procedural justice climate, all the members sense the procedural conformi可 to be just. This will strengthen the positive impact of individual-level L弘1x upon satisfaction with the performance appraisal system. In the lower justice climate, it wiII weaken the positive impact of individual-level LMX upon satisfaction with the performance appraisal system. In summa旬，under different interactive and procedural justice climate, the relationship between the individual-level LMX and the performance appraisal satisfaction will bring moderation. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H9 : The inten'entional function of team justice climate has the nwderating
Chiao Da Alanagement Review 泊1. 30 No. 1, 2010 137
satisfaction
H9-1 : Under higher interac叭'ejustice climate
,
it will strengthen the positiveinψact Of individual-level LMX upon satisfaction with the performance
appraisal session. On the contra吵 under the lower interac的'e justice climate
,
it will weaken the positil'e in司pact of indÏl'idual-lel'el LA1X upon satisfaction with the peφ'rmance appraisal session.H9-2 : Under higher procedural justice climate
,
it will strengthen the positive in月pact of indil'idual-lel'el LMX upon satisfaction with the performanceappraisal. On the contrary
,
under the lower procedural just atmosphere,
it will weaken the positil'e in月pactof indil'idual-lel'el LMX upon sati，φctionwith thepe枷manceappraisal session.
H9-3 : Under ltigher interac的'ejustice climate
,
it will strengthen positil'e impactof i切nd晶'i1卸'il'i叫，i枷d晶伽'ual-l的e的l'叫，，
appraisal 臭句砂yst，缸en郎zαs. On the contrary
,
under the lower interac 的'e justice climate, it will weaken the positil'e in可pact of indil'idual-lel'el LMX uponsatisj泣ction with the performance appraisal systems.
H9-4 : Under higher proceduraljustice climate
,
it will strengthen positil'e impactof indil'idual-lel'el LA位 upon sati，吶ction with the peφ'rmance appraisal
systems. On the contra吵" under the lower procedural justice climate
,
it will weaken the positil'e impact Of indil'idual-lel'el LMX upon satiφctionwith thepe可ormance appraisal 句Jstems.
5. Methodology
5.
1.
SampleAccording to the objectives of research and the characteristic of the object of study, the purposive sampling is used to gather data. The object of study must have the performance session (manager to carry out communication with the employee based on the achievement of performance) and performance appraisal
138 Exp/oring Mu/ti/evel Perspective ofLeader-member Exchange re/evant
to Performance Appraisa/ S，σ肉factiol1
system (car可 out at least one official performance examination annually), The team member should be evaluated by the team manager subjectively. This study refers to George (1990) in order to select the criterion of working team. This study took the science and technology of industry and company under the Ministry of Economic Affairs Business and Labor's registration as information for the group community. One hundred twenty companies were selected and a total of 150 working teams administered the questionnaires. Three team members were matched by 1 team leader in performing the pairing sample. This pairing method originated from the "the origin isolation method" and it will reduce common method variance (CMV) (Peng, Lin, and Kao, 2006; Kirkman and Rosen,
1999), This study expects to reduce the members' comments upon the common method variation for the self performance appraisal satisfaction. The study will use
“
the significant questions" as the questionnaire design. In addition, to avoid defensive attitude amongst the person appraised, the questionnaires are anonymous and hermetically sealed. There is one questionnaire for team managers, and another one for team members. The team member' s questionnaire contains the scale of performance appraisal satisfaction, and the scale of the leader-member exchange relationship. The manager's questionnaire only contains questions about feedback-seeking behavior. In addition, the method of adding up the overall average individual consciousness to the team level (Liao and Rupp,2005) is used to eliminate perception inflation caused by the peer report and to reduce the C弘1V
5.2. Research Instrument
The research instrument is developed by referring to the literature, the academic circle and the practical realm expe此s are invited to comment and suggest on the clari句r of the language and the suitability of the topics. It causes this study to use various scales which have content validity to a certain extent. 5.2.1 Scale of Performance Appraisal Satisfaction
The scale developed by Elicker, Levy and Hall (2006) and originated from Giles and Mossholder (1990) uses a 5-point Likert-type scale. The questionnaire
Chiao Da A4anagement Review f1Jl. 30 No. 1,2010 139
is divided into satisfaction with the performance appraisal session and satisfaction with the performance appraisal system. Each pa口 contains three questions Relevant examples were, for instance:
“
the manager wiIl aim at carry out an effective performance interview about my achievement" as well as “the performance appraisal system is able to be fair and unmistakably assess my performance." The factor loading obtained from the questions range was from.75 to 94. The optimum matching level indictor CFI was .99, GFI was .97, NNFI was .97, SRMR was .04, RMSEA was .10 and the above indicator values show that this aspect model and optimum matching level of ac仙al obtained information is acceptable. The Cronbach's alpha value of satisfaction with the performance appraisal session and satisfaction with performance appraisal system is .74 and .75; and the Composite Reliability is .90 achieving the proposed standard value of above .50 by Raines-Eudy (2000), showing that the internal consistency is good and possesses certain convergent validity. This scale had not defined that the pattern (2 factors) compare with the defined pattern (1 factor), Each indicator has better optimum matching level, and the changes in the chi-square degree-of-freedom are comparatively significant (Anderson and Gerbing, 1 988),Therefore, the two dimensions are different5.2.2. The Scale ofthe Leader-Member Exchange Relationships
By using the scale of Graen and Uhl-Bien (I995), this research uses five point Likert-type scales. Initially there are seven questions. The scale ranged from “Extremely agreeable" to “Extremely disagreeable". Relevant examples were, for instance: “Does my direct manager understand my question and demand in the work." The factor loading obtained from the questions range was from.69 to 86. The optimum matching level indictor CFI was .98, GFI was .94, NNFI was .96, SRMR was .05, RMSEA was .13 and the above indicator values show that this aspect model and optimum matching level of ac仙al obtained information is acceptable with the Cronbach's A1pha value of .91; and the Composite Reliability is .91 achieving the proposed standard value of above .50 by Raines-Eudy (2000), showing that the internal consistency is good. In addition, for the pa口 of the team level L扎1x within group agreement measure (RwgG))
140 Exploring Alultilevel Perspective ofLeader-member Exchange relevant to Performance Appraisal Satisfaction mean value is .95, and 1CC (1) reaches .41 to be bigger than the suggested .12 by James (1982), and 1CC (2) reaches .68 to be larger than the suggested .50 by Ostroff and Schmitt (1993) which showed that it was suitable to use the added overall average method to manage individual and team-level information
5.2.3. The Scale of Feedback-seeking Behavior
The scale of VandeWal1e et.al (2000) is adopted in this study. 1nitially there are five questions. Relevant examples were, for instance: “such employee wil1
inquire you about his professional performance in work." The factor loading obtain.ed from the questions range was from.76 to 95. The optimum matching level indictor CFI was .96, GF1 was .94, NNF1 was .90, SRMR was .04, RMSEA was .17 and the above indicator values show that this aspect model and optimum matching level of ac仙al obtained information is acceptable with the overal1
Cronbach's Alpha value is .89; and the Composite Reliability is .81 achieving the proposed standard value of above .50 by Raines-Eudy (2000), showing that the internal consistency is good. From the above numerical values, this scale possesses reliability and convergent validity
5.2.4. The Scale of J ustice Climate
The scale developed by Elicker, Levy and Hal1 (2006) is adopted by using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The questionnaire is divided into sections on interactive and procedural justice. Relevant examples were:
“
1 feel that the performance appraisal procedures are objectively fair" as well as“
during the performance appraisal process, the manager will treat me fairly." The factor loading obtained from the questions range was from.62 to 99. The optimum matching level indictor CF1 was .97, GFI was .92, NNF1 was .96, SR孔1R was .07, RMSEA was .10 and the above indicator values show that this aspect model and optimum matching level of actual obtained information is acceptable. The Cronbach's Alpha value of the interactive justice and procedural justice is .93 and .88; and the Composite Reliability are .88 and .94 respectively, exceeding the proposed standard value of.50 by Raines-Eudy (2000), showing that the internal consistency is good and possesses convergent validity. 1n addition, the the interactive justice andChiao Da A1anagement Review T1ól. 30 No. 1, 2010 141
procedural justice within group agreement measure (Rwg(j)) mean value is .91 and .92. ICC (1) is respectively .46 and .24 to be bigger than the suggested standard of .12 by James(1982), and ICC(2) reaches .72 and .49 to be bigger than the suggested .50 by OstrotT and Schmitt(1993) which showed that it was suitable to use the added overall average method to manage individual information as the team level information
5.2.5. Control Variables
Blau (1999) pointed out th剖 the member's previous appraisal satisfaction would atTect their present appraisal satisfaction. Hence, this study will perform control for this integration. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) thought that the amount of time that the manager and the member worked together would affect satisfaction with the performance appraisal. Therefore, the time as colleagues would be the control variable. The scholars also take the time for the team establishment as the control variable (Dobbins, Cardy, and Platz-Vieno, 1990), This study regards the team level as the control variable.
5.3.
Data Analysis MethodThis s仙dy uses confirmatory factor analysis to examine the reliability of the instrument, as well as the narrative statistics and the correlation analysis to understand variable relations in order to confirm each hypothesis by Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM), The mediating variable's confirmation step refers to the method of Baron and Kenny (1986) and the pa位em of confirmation of the HLM refers to confirmatory conditions set by Hofmann (1997)，的 this study is operated based on the 且M， and is referred to scholars' suggestions (Hofmann and Gavin, 1998; Liao and Chuang, 2007), to explain that the entire variables adopt the grand-mean centering way to process. This reduces the relevance of the team level intercept and the slope estimates. It also reduces the possible occurrence of multi-collinearity. In addition, this research uses the random effect to carry out the parameter estimation and the pattem confirmation besides strengthening the sample inferential. It may carry out estimate of the parameter
142 Exploring Multilevel Perspective 01 Leader-member Exchange relel仰t toPe吃(ormanceAppraisal SatiφctiOI1
with the aid of all material information. Apart from that, this study uses maximum-likelihood method to estimate the parameters
6. Research Results
6.
1.
Descriptive Statistics ofEach Variable and the Relevant CoefficientAfter this study excluded the questionnaire with over consistent filled in answers, obvious randomly filled in answers as well as the group agreement measure (rwgG)) is lower than .70, there were 81 questionnaires from managers and 243 from employees
The employee's sample statistic of population characteristic includes
54.3% for the male, 58.4% unmarried, the average age is 32 years old, 53.1% for the university colleges and universities education background, the team population are below 6 people (51.9%), the average period of service is 4.5 years,
the time working together as colleagues with the manager rages from 1 year to 3 years (42.8%), the frequency of one year implementation of performance appraisal in team most1y are 2 times (including) below (88.9%), According to the correlation matrix in Table 1, that m吋 ority control variable assumes a remarkable relationship with satisfaction with the performance appraisal session and satisfaction with the performance appraisal system
The correlation coefficient of the main variable of individual-level L孔1X，
feedback-seeking behavior, team-level LMX, the interactive justice c1imate, the procedural justice climate and satisfaction with performance appraisal sessions and satisfaction with the performance appraisal systems are all being placed between .16 to .64, and the relevance all reaches the remarkable standard (p < .05),
Chiao Da Afanagωnent Review /lól. 30 No. 1, 2010
Table 1 Correlation Matrix
"ariable Mean S.D. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
the time working
2.37 2.24
together
PAS(last time) 3.35 71 04
the time for the
team 10.42 7.8 09 09 establishment LMX(indi 、叫 ual 3.64 63 -.06 32 -.08 level) feedback 2.55 90 -.03 10 11 21 seeking behavior LMX(team 3.64 49 -.04 22 -.11 .78 ** 19** level) Interactive 3.78 59 -.10 23 ** -.17** .60** 23** 77 ** j ustice climate procedural 3.08 80 04 11 -.07 25.. 03 32*' 32 justice climate PAS(session) 3.37 70 -.18 33 ** -.11 .64** 28** 49 51 22 PAS(system) 3.06 80 -.07 29*' -.04 .45** 16 28 34 17 ** 1 : *p<.05 **p< .OI(N = 243)
6.2.
The Result of This Study on The Performance AppraisalSatisfaction using The Hierarchical Linear Modelling Analysis
143
9
55**
This study uses the mediating effect of confinnatory step by Baron and Kenny (1986) and refers to the procedure of Liao and Chuang (2007) on
Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) analysis to confinn the hypotheses. First, the study performs null model analysis upon satisfaction with the performance appraisal session and performance appraisal system to understand whether the two variables are suitable to be carried out with the following analysis. Moreover, on the pa口 of confinnation on the mediating effect, it uses the random coefficient
144 Exploring A1u/tilevel Perspeclive of Leader-member Exchange relevanl
10 Performanc叫ppraisal Satiφclion
and the intercept forecast mix model are carried out for analysis. If the individual level intercept presents the remarkable variation (τ00 p < .05), then suitable to carry on the intercept model analysis, representing the intercept of variation at individual level can be remarkably explained by the team level variable (y01 p
< .05), nameIy presents the cross-leveI direct effect. Uses the mix modeI
confirmation of independent variable (individual-leveI LMX and team-leveI LMX) to have remarkable inf1uence upon the mediating variable (feedback-seeking behavior and team justice cIimate) (condition one); Next, independent variable
(individual-level LMX and team-level LMX) as well as the mediating variable (feedback-seeking behavior and team justice cIimate) respectiveIy have remarkable inf1uence on he dependable variable (satisfaction with performance appraisal session and satisfaction with performance appraisal system) (condition two), Finally, after engaged the mediating variable (feedback-seeking behavior and team justice cIimate), independent variable (individual-level as well as team-level L扎直X) weakens the influence level of dependable variable (performance session satisfaction) (partly mediating effect) or presents not the obvious (completely mediating effect); If the intercept modeI assumes the cross-level direct effect (y01 p < .05) obviously and slope of individual level remarkable variation (τ11 P < .05), then it is suitable to ca口y out the slope prediction model analysis. Through the analysis of slope prediction modeI, the existence of disturbance outcome from the justice cIimate against the relationship between the individual-level LMX and satisfaction with performance session and performance appraisal system can be analyzed. If individual-level slope variation is explained by the team variable, then the cross-level disturbance effect is obviously assumed (y11 p < .05), representing the cross-level moderating effect.
6.2.1. Null Model Analysis
After the confirmation of null model, the group variance of performance interview and system of performance satisfaction (τ00) respectively is .14 (χ2=
175.96, df = 80,
P
< .001) and .14 (χ，2 = 144.19, d f= 駒，p< .001), representing the variation of satisfaction with the performance session and performance system under different team obviously is bigger than O. ICC(1) of satisfaction withChiao Da Alanagement Review 跆1. 30No. 1, 2010 145
perfonnance session and performance system respectively are .28 and .21, indicating that satisfaction with the performance session and performance system has 28% and 21%. This variation is possibly created by the team leve1. Hence, it is suitable for HLM analysis.
6.2.2. The Mixed Model Analysis of Random Coefficient and The Intercept Forecast Pattern
In the mixed pattem Model1, individual-level LMX has a remarkable impact upon the feedback-seeking behavior (ylO = .30, P < .001), Therefore hypothesis H3 was established, and team-level LMX does not present a remarkable impact upon the feedback-seeking behavior (yl0 = -.22, P > .05),
showing that the feedback-seeking behaviour will be affected by the individual-level LMX. Therefore this conforms to condition one within the confinnation of mediating effect as propounded by Baron and Kenny (1986) since the variable affects the mediating variable. When the study confinns the impact of the individual level and team level upon the perfonnance appraisal satisfaction,
individual-level LMX has the remarkable variation upon the gap between satisfaction with the performance session and with the perfonnance system(τOOp
< .05), This tallies with 伽 condition by Hofmann (1997) in confinning the cross-level direct effect. When Model2-l was put to the perfonnance session satisfaction, individual-level LMX will obviously affect the performance session satisfaction (yl0 = .的，p < .001), therefore hypothesis H 1-1 was established. The team-level LMX has no remarkable impact upon the performance session satisfaction (yOl = -.07, P > .05), therefore hypothesis H2-1 wiII be untenable When Model2-2 was put to the system of performance satisfaction,
individual-level LMX will obviously affect the performance system satisfaction
(yl0 = .60,p < .001), hypothesis Hl-2 was established, but team level L1vαhas no remarkable impact upon the system of performance satisfaction (yOl = -.11, P
> .05), therefore the hypothesis H2-2 wiII be untenable. Therefore individual-level LMX has positive influence upon the performance appraisal satisfaction, hence,
the hypothesis H1 was established, conforming to the condition two ofBaron and Kenny(1986) which confirms the mediating effect. The independent variable can
146 Dependent variable Level and variables Level-J intercept LMX(individual leνel) Feedback seeking behavior The time working with supen叫 or PAS(last time) Level-2 LA1X(team le\吋 interactive justice climate procedural justice c/imate
the time for the team
establishment
n(Level-J) n(Level-2)
Model deviance
E中loringλ.fultilevelPerspective of Leader-member Exchange relevant
ω Performance Appraisal Satisfaction
Table 2 The Result of HLM
Feedback
seeking PAS(session) PAS(system)
behavior
Model1 Model2-1 Model3-1 Model2-2 R宜。de13-2
2.91*** 3.24*** 2.98*** 3.00*** 2.54*** 30'*' .65**' .6
1""
60"* 61 '** 11** 06。。
-.04** -.05** -.15 -.03 -.02 17*
**
15** .15* .13+ -.22 -.07 -.14+ -. 11 -.30** 08 02 -.08 03 18* .54*** 01 -.01 -.01。。
。。
243 243 243 243 243 81 81 81 81 81 487.60 395.29 394.16 532.48 511.30 1 : +p < .10; .p < .05;刁<.01; ...p < .001affect the dependent variable, meeting the condition two. Team-level LMX has no
Chiao Da A1anagement Review I台1. 30 No. 1, 2010 147
hypothesis H2 is untenable and has not been able to confoffi1 to condition two of Baron and Kenny(1986) which confirms of the mediating effect. In ModeI2-1, individual-level LMX will affect satisfaction with the perfoffi1ance session ofwith the perfoffi1ance system. Therefore, the mediating variables of feedback-seeking behavior, the interactive justice c1imate and the procedural justice c1imate are put separately in Model3-1 and Model3-2. In 弘10del3 -1， after the feedback-seeking behavior being put, individual-Ievel L弘1x still assumed obvious relationships with the perfoffi1ance session satisfaction (p < .001), but Beta coefficient dropped from .65 to .61, and feedback-seeking behavior was remarkable upon the perforτnance session satisfaction (yl0 = .18, P < .01), the hypothesis H4-1 was established, confoffi1s to condition three of Baron and Kenny(1986)which confiffi1S the mediating effect, therefore feedback-seeking behavior assumes
partial mediating effect to individual-Ievel L弘1x and relationships of satisfaction with the performance session, therefore H5-1 was established; Interactive justice c1imate was not remarkable upon the perfoffi1ance session satisfaction (yOl = .02,
p> .05), therefore hypothesis H7-1 was untenable, however the procedural justice
c1imate wiII obviously affect the perfoffi1ance session satisfaction (y02 = .18, P
< .05), therefore hypothesis H7-2 was established. In Model3-2, after putting the
feedback-seeking behavior, the relevance and Beta coefficient between the individual-Ievel LMX and perfoffi1ance session satisfaction were reduced, and feedback-seeking behavior obviously did not intluence performance session satisfaction (yl0 = .18, P > .05), therefore hypothesis H4-2 was untenable. The feedback-seeking behavior has the mediating effect on individual-Ievel LMX and relationships of the performance session satisfaction; therefore H5-2 was untenable. According to 出e above confiffi1ation of hypo伽肘， since team level L扎1x does not affect perfoffi1ance session satisfaction and the perfoffi1ance system satisfaction (p > .05), hypothesis H8 was untenable. As for the pa此 of cross-Ievel moderating effect upon the justice c1imate, in ModeI2-1, individual-level LMX has not had the emarkable variation to the slope of the perfoffi1ance session satisfaction (τ11 = .05, P > .05), therefore the relationships between the interactive and the procedural justice c1ima
148 Exploring Alultilevel Perspective ofLeader-member Exchange relevant 的 PerformanceAppraisal Satis.，戶ction
moderation effect, hypotheses H9-1 and H9-2 were untenable. In Model2-2,
individual-level LMX has not had the remarkable variation to slope of the
performance system satisfaction (τ11 = .06, P > .05)， 出erefore the relationships
between the interactive and the procedural justice climate to individual-level LMX and the performance session satisfaction has not had the cross-level
moderating effect, therefore hypotheses H9-3 and H9-4 were untenable
7. Conclusions and Suggestions
This section will explain and discuss the the。可 andthe meaning of
management practice. It will then identify the research limitations and make
suggestions for fuωre research
7.
1.
The Main Discovery and Discussion ofthis Research
7.1.1. The Positive lmpact of The lndividual Level LMX upon Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal
This study discusses satisfaction with the performance sessions and the
performance system, which is the process often neglected in the past (Levy and
Williams, 2004), but it will create impact upon the employee's job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and job performance (Kuva品， 2006; Poon, 2004),
Amongst the factors that influence the performance appraisal process, the
interaction between the manager and the employee is the most potent (Elicker,
Levy, and Hall, 2006; Lid凹， Wayne, and Stilwell, 1993), According to the
research resu1t, individual -level L孔。正 has posi位ve impact upon satisfaction with
the performance session and the performance system; the manager and the member establish the exchange relationships which can improve the employee's
performance and satisfaction with the system. Good relationships between
managers and employees promote tm哎， loyalty and communication. This assists
the employees in clarifying their role and understanding their performance (Elicker,
Chiao Da Management Review J，令1. 30 No. 1, 2010
7.
1.2.
The Positive Impact of Feedback-seeking Behavior upon ThePerformance Session Satisfaction
149
According to the past research, the employee wiII seek feedback to
understand the manager's expectations (Ashford and Ts山， 1991;Morrison, 1993),
From the confirmation result, feedback-seeking behavior has positive impact upon
satisfaction with the performance sessions. We can understand that when the
manager sensed that the employee inquires about his or her performance, he or
she wiII receive more information and make a better impression on the manager.
Hence, it is helpful to c1arify the manager's expectation towards his or her role
The employee wiII also have higher performance session satisfaction. Morrison
(1993) thought that those employees who seek feedback wiII understand their own
performance, conform to the manager's expectation, and have greater satisfaction
with their performance sessions. However, with regards to the system of
performance satisfaction, the manager acts as the system's implementer. When the
manager sees the member's feedback-seeking behavior, usually the employee wiII
not discuss the system with the manager. Both sides stress achievements and
social behavior. Hence, feedback-seeking behavior wiII not affect satisfaction with
the performance system
7.1.3. The Feedback-seeking Behavior Has Partially Mediating Effect upon
The Relationships between Individual-Ievel LMX and The Performance Session Satisfaction
This study verifies the proposal of Erdogan, Lden with Kraimer (2006) that
the manager affects the member's behavior. Feedback-seeking behavior has
partiaIIy mediating effect on the rela甘 onship between individual-level L弘1x and
performance session satisfaction. However, the manager and member's exchange
relationships, cannot promote satisfaction with the performance system through
feedback-seeking. The manager senses that the information lies in individual
150 Exploring Afultilel'el Perspectil'e of Leader-member Exchange relevant
(0 PerformanGe Appraisal Sati主角ction
affect the member's satisfaction with the performance system. Hence, encouraging feedback-seeking behavior will not increase the impact of team manager and employee exchange relationships upon satisfaction with the performance system.
Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) believed that when the team managers and the member develop a strong exchange relationship, the member will obtain more attention and resources, and by the higher achievements performance, trust and positive feedback to the manager. Both sides will caπy out open and comfortable communication.
This will be helpful in conveying the role expectation of the manager to the member. Elicker, Levy and Hall (2006) thought that key to satisfaction with performance appraisals Iies in the individual and feedback on performance between the manager and the member. This is helpful for the team members to c1arify the manager's role expectation (Morrison, 1993), creation of positive impression (Ashford and Ts山， 1991) and reduces the achievements performance' s uncertainty (Callister, Kramer, and Turban, 1999), The communication will be strengthened by satisfying the member in gaining the performance information expectation which will then enhance the employee's performance session satisfaction
7.1.4. The Procedural Justice Climate Has Positive Impact upon The Performance Appraisal Satisfaction
This study has the similar viewpoints of Levy with Williams (2004) th剖 discuss the importance of society context upon the process of performance appraisal. Liao and Rupp (2005) and Colquitt (2004) thought that comparing the individual just consciousness, the team justice c1imate can affect the team member' s behavior and the work attitude. The procedural justice c1imate has positive impact upon the performance session and the performance system; the higher the team procedural justice c1imate, the higher the team member' s satisfaction with performance appraisals. However, the interactive justice c1imate does not have a significant influence upon satisfaction with the performance sessions and the performance system. Individual-Ievel LMX is influenced by the satisfaction with performance appraisals and if the team members feel the higher procedural justice c1imate, it will affect the team's emotional atmosphere in the team. Mossholder, Bennett and Martin (1998), and Naumann and Bennett (2000)
Chiao Da Alanagement Re1叩W均1. 30 No. 1, 2010 151
recognize that such procedural justice c1imate which was transformed from an emotional atmosphere can affect individual behavior. The establishment of the team managers and the member exchange relationship is able to promote the employee's satisfaction with performance appraisals, but attention must be paid to the maintenance ofthe team internal procedural justice. When the team managers implement the performance appraisal, they should consider whether the assignment of decision-making and procedure regarding the member's performance are conslstent
7.2. 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
