Procedural fairness of objective and subjective performance evaluations: Exploring the combined effects of uncertainty and trust
Comptabilite Controle Audit, ISSN: 1262-2788, Vol: 27, Issue: 2, Page: 111-154
2021
- 2Citations
- 18Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Empirical research on the costs and benefits of subjective compared to objective performance evaluations has produced results that remain mixed. To shed light on this debate, we examine the effects of these two types of evaluation on managers' perceived procedural fairness in different contexts combining uncertainty and trust. The purpose is, on the one hand, to identify whether one type of evaluation is perceived as fairer than the other in certain contexts and, on the other hand, to explore how these fairness judgments are formed. To address these two questions, we analyze quantitative and qualitative data collected from 418 managers with a scenario-based questionnaire. Our results show that subjective evaluations are perceived as fairer than objective ones by managers who are faced with situations of high uncertainty and who trust their superior. Conversely, objective evaluations are perceived as fairer in situations where both trust and uncertainty are low. Our results also show that managers form their fairness judgments by considering two dimensions: they perceive that subjective evaluations give them the opportunity to express their point of view, and that objective evaluations are more accurate and less biased. Overall, these results suggest that organizations can improve their performance evaluation systems, either by using criteria appropriate to the context or by acting on uncertainty and/ or trust.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know