High Job Performance Through Co‐Developing Performance Measures With Employees

• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Author: Celeste P. M. Wilderom,Marc J. F. Wouters,Bianca A. C. Groen
• Date: 01 January 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21762

Human Resource Management, January–February 2017, Vol. 56, No. 1. Pp. 111–132

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21762

Correspondence to: Bianca Groen, University of Amsterdam Business School, P.O. Box 15953, 1001 NL Amsterdam,

The Netherlands, Phone: +31 20525 6306, E-mail: b.a.c.groen@uva.nl

Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings,

1988; Derfuss, 2009; He & King, 2008; Miller

& Monge, 1986; Rodgers & Hunter, 1991; Van

De Voorde, Paauwe, & Van Veldhoven, 2012;

Wagner, 1994; Wagner & Gooding, 1987; Wagner,

Leana, Locke, & Schweiger, 1997).

Despite the large number of studies on

employee participation, few of them have

investigated how these beneficial participation-

performance effects are achieved. To explain how

Employee participation is an important

topic in human resource management

(HRM) research (e.g., Wilkinson & Fay,

2011). It means that managers intention-

ally provide opportunities for lower-level

employees to have a voice in key areas of organi-

zational functioning (Glew, O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin,

& Van Fleet, 1995). Meta-analyses have revealed

many positive performance effects of participa-

tion (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Cotton,

HIGH JOB PERFORMANCE

THROUGH CO-DEVELOPING

PERFORMANCE MEASURES WITH

EMPLOYEES

BIANCA A. C. GROEN, CELESTE P. M. WILDEROM,

ANDMARC J. F. WOUTERS

According to various studies, employee participation in the development of per-

formance measures can increase job performance. This study focuses on how

this job performance elevation occurs. We hypothesize that when employees

have participated in the development of performance measures, they perceive

these measures to be of higher quality, which in turn elevates their attitudes

toward, perceived social norms for, and perceived control over performing well

in their jobs. Based on the theory of planned behavior, the latter three factors

are hypothesized to increase job performance. Survey data from 95 employees

as well as 88 of their managers were analyzed using structural equation mod-

eling. Employee participation in developing performance measures is found to

be related to job performance, via perceived measurement quality and employ-

ees’ perceived control over performing well. We discuss the practical and the-

oretical implications of these fi ndings, including the limitations of this study’s

design, and sketch a number of future research paths in this area. © 2015 Wiley

Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: theory of planned behavior, job performance, employee participa-

tion in the development of performance measures, quality of performance

measures, perceived control

112 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2017

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

The current study

examines employee

participation in

the development

of performance

measures.

Performance

measures

quantitatively express

job performance,

including both

individual and group

measures.

scholars attribute these results to employee behav-

ior but have not investigated this specifically. For

instance, Kleingeld etal. (2004) assume that cog-

nitive benefits (e.g., a better understanding of job

priorities and task strategies) and motivational

gains (e.g., greater commitment to the perfor-

mance measures, as well as the offered feedback

and goals) explain the positive effects on job

performance. Some studies on employee partici-

pation in goal setting provide empirical support

for these cognitive and motivational arguments

(Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994; Wagner etal.,

1997); other studies also include the social effects

of participation (Erez & Arad, 1986; Jeong, 2006).

It was Jeong (2006) who noted that one should

include cognitive, motivational, and social fac-

tors to fully explain the mechanisms between

participation and beneficial outcomes—which

in our study encompasses co-developing perfor-

mance measures and the actual rating of job per-

formance. Similar factors have been investigated

in a wider group of studies linking performance

measurement to performance (e.g., Birnberg, Luft,

& Shields, 2007; Burney, Henle, & Widener, 2009;

Collins, 1982; De Leeuw & Van den Berg, 2011;

Gruman & Saks, 2011; Hall, 2008; Ilgen, Fisher,

& Taylor, 1979; Luckett & Eggleton, 1991; Webb,

2004).

The main goal of this study is to examine how

employee participation in developing performance

measures and job performance are linked not only

through cognitive, motivational, and social fac-

tors, but also through perceived measurement

quality. We define job per formance as the extent

to which employees meet their job requirements

(Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1989). By blending

the literature on employee participation, perfor-

mance measurement, and the theory of planned

behavior, we aim to offer new insights into how

employee-developed performance measures may

help organizations improve job performance.

These insights are necessary for organizations

and HRM professionals to reap the full benefits

of employee participation. The present study is

also important from an academic point of view,

because the outcomes will point out which set of

factors is the most important to research in the

realm of enhancing employees’ job performance.

As a first contribution, we introduce perceived

measurement quality as a promising construct to

explain the link between employee participation

in developing performance measures and job perfor-

mance. Perceived measurement quality is defined

as the extent to which employees find the per-

formance measures sensitive to their actions,

precise in measuring relevant aspects of their

performance, and verifiable (Moers, 2006). It is

HRM practices—such as employee participation—

affect job performance, researchers increasingly

focus on employees’ perceptions of these prac-

tices (e.g., Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby,

2013; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Nishii & Wright,

2008). Employees’ perceptions of HRM practices

are important because the implementation of

HRM practices by the HRM department or the

line managers will affect outcomes, such as bet-

ter job performance, only if the employees are

aware of these practices (Aryee, Walumbwa, Seidu,

& Otaye, 2012; Brewster, Gollan, & Wright, 2013;

Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg, & Croon, 2013).

Given this dependence, the present study focuses

on employee perceptions of their own participa-

tion in relation to their job performance.

When investigating how

employee participation can lead to

positive effects, one should be spe-

cific about the type of participa-

tion studied (Cawley, Keeping, &

Levy, 1998; Jeong, 2006). The cur-

rent study examines employee par-

ticipation in the development of

performance measures. Performance

measures quantitatively express job

performance, including both indi-

vidual and group measures. Such

measures comprise, for example,

client satisfaction, efficiency, and

the amount of work completed in a

certain amount of time. We define

employee participation in developing

performance measures as the extent of

influence employees feel they have

had on the design, implementation,

and maintenance of the perfor-

mance measures they are measured

by. Such participation includes goal

or target setting, as well as the co-

development of other features of

performance measures such as name, purpose,

calculation formula, frequency of measuring, data

sources, and responsibilities (Neely, Bourne, Mills,

Platts, & Richards, 2002; Neely, Richards, Mills,

Platts, & Bourne, 1997). The development of these

features should not only take place in the initial

design and implementation phase; to remain rel-

evant, the measures should also be reviewed and

maintained while they are in use (Bourne, Mills,

Wilcox, Neely, & Platts, 2000).

Prior studies found positive effects of

employee participation in the development of

performance measures on the actual perfor-

mance of employees and work units (e.g., Groen,

Wouters, & Wilderom, 2012a; Hunton & Gibson,

1999; Kleingeld, Van Tuijl, & Algera, 2004). Most