INTRODUCTION

Performance appraisal is an essential practice in an organization as it yields the various activities and decision related to human resource management (Jawahar, 2007). Despite years of research, dissatisfaction and frustration with performance appraisal remained as a common problem at an all-time. With the passage of time organizations are planning to improve the performance management system (Adler et.al., 2016). The usefulness of a performance appraisal system depends on all users of the system i.e. appraises, appraisers and organizations (Ikramullah, et.al., 2016). Employees’ perception of justice at workplace can have an impact on several organizational behaviour aspects such as satisfaction with work (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992) commitment with organization (Suliman & Al Kathairi, 2012) trust with organization (Saunders & Thornhill, 2003) organization citizenship behaviour (Muhammad, 2004) and performance of an employee (Suliman & Al Kathairi, 2012). Performance appraisal is the process in which the performance of an employee is evaluated by the supervisor or manager (Shen, 2004). Proper implementation and execution of the performance appraisal system remain a challenge for human resource management effectiveness (Taylor et.al., 1995). Performance appraisal is a practice used in organizations by which promotion decisions, training needs, pay decisions, and employees motivation are evaluated through performance appraisal ratings (Cascio & Bernardin, 1981).

Differences in Public and Private Banks

Banking sector of Pakistan is a healthy and growing sector which is contributing to the growth and development of an economy of the country. Public and Private Banks are two different banks in the term of their control, operations and their structure. Public banks are controlled by the government while private banks are controlled by private owners and their management bodies. Private Banks are more profit-oriented then public banks. Private Banks is using advanced technology, unconventional and innovative approaches on a speedy basis while public banks are slow in implementing the use of advanced technology and using conventional approaches.

The customer feels more satisfied in private banks in comparison to public banks because of appropriate locations of the branches, advanced technology usage, and customer care. However, public banks give a minor advantage to customers in lower charges on services and there are reliable because of government ownership. Private banks employees are more trained, and customer service focused than public bank employees (Haq & Muhammad, 2013). According to Singh (2006) private banks have progressive technology, they have complete control, autonomy and unrestricted from bureaucratic environment which helps them to make quick decisions and in results they satisfy to their customers with their innovative and creative customer-focused approaches and they provide excellent atmosphere of working to their employees to maintain the high efficiency and effectiveness.

Organizational Justice

In literature the terms ‘fairness’, ‘justice’ and ‘equity’ are used interchangeably (Adams, 1963; Moorman, 1991). Organizational justice is usually used by organizations for ethical purposes and fair treatment with an employee (Greenberg, 1990) and it is based on equity-based perceptions (Adams, 1963). Organizational justice is associated with social exchange theory. The social exchange theory explains that people perceive justice when they feel that their efforts and their contributions are balanced with the rewards (Adams, 1963). According to Greenberg’s (1993) organizational justice concept, in which he crosscut two determining factors of justice (structural and social) and two justice dimensions (distributive and procedural) and in the result he originated four justice factors (configural, systematic, interpersonal and informational). Bies and his fellows introduced another type of justice emphasis on interaction quality among peoples in the workplace (Bies & Shapiro, 1987). There were three forms of justice (Procedural, Distributive, and Interactional) supported in the meta-analysis (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Greenberg (1993) discovered in his study that interactional justice comprised of two types. The first type is interpersonal justice, it means how an individual is treated and the second type is informational justice that means reasoning and justification for why something occurred (Colquitt et.al., 2001). Colquitt (2001) also supported four justice types (procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice). Roch & Shanock (2006) integrated four factors of justice into one conceptual framework by using exchange theory. Thurston (2010) applied justice dimensions in the framework of performance appraisal practices and found the impact of justice on satisfaction with the appraisal system, appraisal ratings and with a supervisor.

FOUR JUSTICE DIMENSIONS

Procedural Justice: Three specific procedures (setting performance expectations, assigning raters and seeking appeals) have shown importance in appraisal research (Leventhal, 1980). Taylor et.al., (1995) underscore the significance of seeking an appeal and setting performance criteria. Alexander & Ruderman (1987) also found the perception of appeal were positively associated with the assessment of supervisors, job satisfaction and trust in management. It is also found in the literature that individuals accept injustice up to limit where they find that fair procedures are applied (Greenberg, 1990; Leventhal, 1980).

Distributive Justice: Distributive justice is also termed as equity theory (Adams, 1963). There are two components linked with distributive justice, first type is equity (Leventhal, 1980) and the second type is raters personal goal (e.g. to teach, motivate or avoid conflict). Employees may ponder fair appraisal if they observe that the rate is trying to encourage them and helping to improve their performances. Distributive justice includes accuracy of rating and concern over rating.

Interpersonal Justice: Interpersonal justice perception means that an employee receives a treatment from a supervisor. Greenberg (1986) investigated that individuals inclined by the sensitivity shown by the supervisor and it is also found that raters’ expression of remorse shown can overcome the ratees’ unfairness perception.

Informational Justice: Informational justice perception is socially determined, and it is based on clarifying performance expectations, explaining rating decisions and providing feedback.

The purpose of this research is to find justice perceived by an employee in the public and private banking organization of Pakistan. This study will be helpful to confirm the four-factor model in public and private banks of Pakistan which is different from the west and secondly sector-wise comparison of public and private banks would give better results to identify the problems associated with performance appraisal practices.

There are meager studies available that compared the public and private banking organizations in the context of justice perception of performance appraisal practices.

Therefore, a comparative analysis of performance appraisal practices would give the better understanding to analyze justice prevailing in public and private banks as perceived by employees.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES* To examine and comparatively analyze employees’ perception relates to procedural justice dimensions (rater confidence, setting performance expectations, seeking appeal) between Public and Private banks.

• To examine and comparatively analyze employees’ perception relates to distributive justice dimensions (accuracy of rating, concern over rating)between public and private banks.

• To examine and comparatively analyze employees’ perception relates to interpersonal justice dimensions (respect in supervision and sensitivity in supervision)between public and private banks.

• To examine and comparatively analyze employees’ perception relates to informational justice dimensions (clarifying expectations, providing feedback, explaining rating decisions) between public and private banks.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

H1:There is a significant difference in employees’ perception relates to procedural justice dimensions (rater confidence, setting performance expectations, seeking appeal) of a performance appraisal system between public and private banks.

H2: There is a significant difference in employees’ perception relates to distributive justice dimensions (accuracy of rating, concern over rating) of a performance appraisal system between public and private banks.

H3: There is a significant difference in employees’ perception relates to interpersonal justice dimensions (sensitivity in supervision and respect in supervision) of a performance appraisal system between public and private banks.

H4: There is a significant difference in employees’ perception relates to informational justice dimensions (clarifying expectations, providing feedback, explaining rating decisions) of a performance appraisal system between public and private banks.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Ahmed (2018) studied the employee’s justice perception of appraisal system in the Pakistani telecom sector. In his study, he revealed the relationship of justice dimensions with satisfaction towards appraisal system, appraisal rating and with a supervisor. Data were collected from 350 respondents of the telecom sector by using survey method. In the finding, it is confirmed that significant relationship exists in four constructs of justice with three dimensions of satisfaction. Furthermore, it is emphasized that this study would be helpful to improve and upgrade the performance appraisal practices in the telecom sector of Pakistan.

Shrivastava and Purang (2011) conducted his research on the comparative study of performance appraisal of private and public banks in India. There was a total 340 sample size consisting of 230 respondents from public banks and 110 respondents from private banks. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Data were collected from two private and two public banks. Purposive method of sampling was used for selecting different appraisal practices of different banks. Nine factors of justice perception of appraisal system and performance appraisal system satisfaction compared between two banks. In result, it was found that seven factors out of nine factors perceive greater justice perception in private banks than public banks. In addition, it is also observed that employees perceive higher appraisal system satisfaction in private banks in comparison to public banks.

Thurston and McNall (2010) studied on fairness perception of appraisal practices in which he developed ten multi-item scales to measure the justice of appraisal practices. Data were collected from 188 respondents and data were analyzed quantitatively. Four correlated constructs of justice were used after evidence of confirmatory factor analysis. It is found that a positive association existed between distributive justice and performance appraisal rating satisfaction, procedural justice with appraisal system satisfaction, information and interpersonal justice with supervisor satisfaction. Furthermore, it is found that there is a positive relationship between procedural justice and citizenship behaviors towards the organization via satisfaction with appraisal system; distributive justice with satisfaction with current appraisal; and informational and interpersonal and citizenship behaviors towards supervisor via satisfaction with a supervisor.

Nassar and Zaitouni (2015) conducted his research on Egyptian chain hotels relates to justice perception of performance appraisal. This research aims to examine the association between perceived supervisor competence, support of supervisor and perception of organizational justice in the employees of the hotel. In data analysis, hierarchical regression was used for hypothesis testing, perceived supervisor support that mediates the association between supervisor competence and organizational justice. It is found in the result that where the employees find their supervisor is supportive and fair organizational justice exists then they accept that their supervisors are very competent. The finding of the study reveals that policies may be developed by an organization that can create a transparent and supportive relationship in between employee and manager.

Gupta and Kumar (2012) studied on effects of performance appraisal fairness on the engagement of an employee. This study comprised of two parts. One part explores the association between one dimensional concept of engagement and perception of justice and the second part focused the association of three-dimensional engagement concept and perception of justice. Data were analyzed with regression and correlation. This study finds a positive relationship between informational and distributive justice dimensions and engagement of an employee. Furthermore, it is found that the engagement of an employee is strongly influenced by informational and distributive justice.

RESEARCH METHODS

Data were collected from various branches, regional offices and head office of public and private banks located in the province of Sindh, Pakistan. The sample was randomly chosen to collect the data. Initially, 150 questionnaires were distributed and data were collected from 125 respondents. The scale of 56-item used to measure the ten variable of justice perception in the context of Performance Appraisal System (PAS).

Thurston (2001) developed the scale which was also later on used by Walsh (2003) in her study. The same scale used in this study with little change to suit the context in the Pakistani banking sector. The Five-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree) was used for data collection.

The reliability of the questionnaire is measured through Cronbach’s alpha which internal consistency of the items that measures the variable. In Table-1, it shows that Cronbach’s alpha is ranging from 0.70 to 0.90 that is acceptable values (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

TABLE-1

REALIABILITY STATISTICS

RESULTS

RESPONDENT’S PROFILE- FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

Data were collected from 125 respondents, 65 respondents from the public banks and 60 from the private banks. There were 87.7 % (n =57) male and 12.3 % (n=8) female from public banks and 75 % (n= 45) male and 25% (n =15) female from private banks. With regards to age wise frequency distribution shown in Table-2, experience wise data is given in the Table-3 and qualification wise data is given in Table-4 and in Table-5 job category wise data is given.

This study will examine the mean differences in ten factors of employee justice perception of private and public banks. The results show that significant mean difference between private and public banks. Table 6 and 7 show that in private banks, employees (N=60) performance criteria are clearly described (MPR = 3.5167, MPB = 2.8436, t = - 5.618, P = 3.4167, MPB = 2.8215, t = - 4.567, P

TABLE-7

DISCUSSION

In the result, it is clearly shown that employees of private banks perceive higher justice in procedural justice dimensions, distributive justice dimensions, interpersonal justice dimension and informational justice dimensions than public banks.

Procedural justice dimensions (setting performance expectations, rater confidence, seeking appeal) have high mean values in private banks than public banks. Goal Setting is one of an important motivating factor that drives the employees in the organizational with high energy and motivation (Wood, R.A., and Locke, 1990). In the private banking sector performance expectations are plainly set with clear directions at the start of the appraisal period but same intensity for goal setting and achieving the target is not followed in public banks. Employees of public banks show less rater confidence in comparison to private bank employees. According to Jawahar (2006) satisfaction of subordinate increases with a supervisor when the supervisor is knowledgeable relates to subordinate’s jobs. It is very necessary to have a trust and confidence in rater/supervisor, subordinates feel confident and satisfied with rater/supervisor, the same energy and feelings also disseminated to the working team (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Private bank employees perceive the strong system of appeal where an employee can object against the rating results while public bank employees are reluctant to appeal against the appraisal ratings.

In private banks, employees perceive greater distributive justice dimensions, the accuracy of rating and concern overrating as compared to public banks. According to Kumar (2005) rater training is also important in the performance appraisal process. Rater training can be very helpful to understand the performance appraisal process and procedures correctly and apply it in the organization that employees may feel satisfied with concern to rating and accuracy of rating.

It is shown in a result that as far as interpersonal justice is concerned, both sectors have positive mean values of respect and sensitivity in supervision, but private banks mean values are higher than public banks.

Furthermore, it is also found that employees of private bank perceive that informational justice dimension, clarifying expectations, providing feedback and explaining rating decisions are fairer and justified than public banks. In the private banks, employees perceive greater contentment relates to clarification of expectations, timely feedback and explaining rating decision as compared to public banks.

CONCLUSION

The main purpose of performance appraisal should be motivating and developing the employees along with the measurement of the performance. Performance appraisal may be used to channelize the employees’ and organizations energy to achieve the goals of an organization. Performance appraisal can be used as a strategic tool that integrates the employees’ goal with an organizational goal.

This research represents four factor of organizational justice in the context of performance appraisal (Thurston & McNall, 2010) into the public and private banks of Pakistan. It is clear from the obtained data that employee perceptions of public and private banks are different from each other in perspective of justice in the context of performance appraisal. It is found that employees of private banks perceive greater procedural justice (setting performance expectation, rater confidence, seeking appeal), distributive justice (accuracy of rating, concern overrating), interpersonal justice (respect in supervision, sensitivity in supervision) and informational justice (clarifying expectations, providing feedback, explaining rating decisions) as compared to public banks.

It is recommended that there is a need to explore the potential problems prevailing in performance appraisal practices in public banks and may be improved that their employees can perceive impartiality in their appraisal practices.

Furthermore, it is suggested that applying justice dimensions into the organizational practices can be useful for employee promotion, layoffs, rewards and conflict resolutions. This research can also be supportive as a measurement tool for managers and supervisors to measure the performance appraisal system.

Organization justice can “create immense benefits for organizations and employees” including better job performance, improved trust and commitment, greater customer satisfaction, more helpful citizenship behavior and moderated conflict (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland, 2007).

The undertaken research was limited to public and private banks. It is recommended that this research may be expanded that foreign and other banks may be included for further study. Furthermore, this study can be carried out in other sectors and industries of Pakistan to find the latent problem associated with performance appraisal practices as perceived by an employee.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5):422–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968

Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos, E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? A debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2):219–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.106

Ahmed, I., & Sattar, A. (2018). The Influence of Justice Perceptions on Performance Appraisal Reactions in Telecom Sector of Pakistan Ijaz Ahmed 1 and Abdul Sattar 2, 8(1):86–100.

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1(2):177–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048015

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2):199–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048016

Cascio, W. F., & Bernardin, H. J. (1981). Implications of Performance Appraisal Litigation for Personnel Decisions. Personnel Psychology, 34(2):211.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. The Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Conlon, D. E., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The Management of Organizational Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4):34–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.27895338

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2):340–342. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.340

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2):399-432. https://doi.org/10.1177 /014920639001600208

Greenberg, J. (1993). The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organisational Justice. Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management, (4):79–103.

Gupta, V., & Kumar, S. (2012). Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee engagement: a study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451311279410

Haq, W., & Muhammad, B. (2013). Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, 185, 515–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4600-1

Ikramullah, M., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Iqbal, M. Z., & Ul-Hassan, F. S. (2016). Effectiveness of performance appraisal. Personnel Review, 45(2):334–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2014-0164

Jawahar, I. M. (2006). An investigation of potential consequences of satisfaction with appraisal feedback. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,13(2):14–28.

Jawahar, I. M. (2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions. Journal of Labor Research, 28(4):735–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-007-9014-1

Kumar, D. S. P. D. (2005). Performance Appraisal: The Importance of Rater Training. Journal of Kuala Lumpur Royal Malaysia Police College, 1(4):1–17.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, 27–55. https://doi.org /10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice, (January 2018): xii & 267. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781107415324.004

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Research Notes. Distributive and Procedural Justice As Predictors of Satisfaction With Personal and Organizational Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3):626-637. https://doi.org/10.2307/256489

Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6):845-855.

Muhammad, A. H. (2004). Procedural Justice As Mediator Between Participation in Decision-Making and Organizational Citizenship. Organ, The, 14(3):58–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/10569210480000184

Nassar, M. A., & Zaitouni, M. (2015). Perceived performance appraisal justice in Egyptian chain hotels. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(3):329–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2015-0028

Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32(2):299–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305280115

Saunders, M. N. K., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Organisational justice, trust and the management of change. Personnel Review, 32(3):360–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310467660

Shen, J. (2004). International performance appraisal: policies, practices and determinant in the case of Chinese multinational companies. International Journal of Manpower,Vol.25:547-563.

Shrivastava, A., & Purang, P. (2011). Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: A comparative study on Indian banks. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(3):632-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585192.2011.543639

Singh, D., and Kohli, G. (2006). Evaluation of Private Sector Banks in India: A SWOT Analysis,’. Journal of Management Research, 6, 2:84-101.

Suliman, A., & Al Kathairi, M. (2012). Organizational justice, commitment and performance in developing countries. Employee Relations, 35(1):98-115. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451311279438

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2:53–55. https://doi.org/ 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly,40(3):495-523.

Thurston, P. W. J. (2001). Clarifying The Structure of Justice Using Fairness Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Practices. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Albany, NY.

Thurston, P. W., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3):201-228. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011023712

Walsh, M. B. (2003). Perceived Fairness of and Satisfaction with Employee Performance Appraisal. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University).

Wood, R.A., and Locke, E. (1990). ‘Goal Setting and Strategy Effects on Complex Tasks. In Research in Organizational Behavior Eds. B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, 12:73-110.