Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical Governance, Performance Appraisal and Interactional and Procedural Fairness at a New Zealand Public Hospital

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the conduct of performance appraisals of nurses in a New Zealand hospital, and how fairness is perceived in such appraisals. In the health sector, performance appraisals of medical staff play a key role in implementing clinical governance, which, in turn, is critical to containing health care costs and ensuring quality patient care. Effective appraisals depend on employees perceiving their own appraisals to be fair both in terms of procedure and interaction with their respective appraiser. We examine qualitative data from interviews and focus groups, involving 22 nurses in a single department, to determine whether perceived injustices impact on the effective implementation of the appraisal system. Our results suggest that particular issues had been causing some sense of injustice, and most of these were procedural. Potential solutions focus on greater formalisation of the performance appraisal process, and more training for appraisers and appraisees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. (2011). Why we hate performance management and why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54(6), 503–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional injustice, the sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organisational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degeling, P. J., Maxwell, S., Ledema, R., & Hunter, D. J. (2004). Making clinical governance work. British Medical Journal, 329, 679–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (3rd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dipboye, R. L., & Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), 248–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. (1999). The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluations’ fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 288–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). Procedural justice as a two-dimensional construct: An examination in the performance appraisal context. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 37(2), 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 14, 129–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1986a). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1986b). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In M. H. Bazerman, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organisations (pp. 25–41). Greenwich: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunton, J. E., Hall, T. W., & Price, K. H. (1998). The value of voice in participative decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 788–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ismail, A., Mashkuri, A., Sulaiman, A., & Hock, W. (2011). Interactional justice as a mediator of the relationship between pay for performance and job satisfaction. Intangible Capital, 7(2), 213–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 2(3), 489–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21(4), 657–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 751–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linna, A., Elovainio, M., Van den Bos, K., Kivimaki, M., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2012). Can usefulness of performance appraisal interviews change organizational justice perceptions? A 4-year longitudinal study among public sector employees. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7), 1360–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSherry, R., & Pearce, P. (2002). Clinical governance: A guide to implementation for healthcare professionals. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerial Task Force on Clinical Leadership. 2009. In good hands: Transforming clinical governance in New Zealand. http://www.aemh.org/pdf/InGoodHandsReport.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2011.

  • Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal-oriented perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narcisse, S., & Harcourt, M. (2008). Employee fairness perceptions of performance appraisal: A Saint Lucian case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(6), 1152–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Health Board. 2010. Trends in service design and new models of care: A review. http://www.nationalhealthboard.govt.nz/sites/all/files/trends-service-design-new-models-care-jul2010.pdf Accessed 4 Mar 2011.

  • Nieswiadomy, R. (2008). Foundations of nursing research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nursing Council of New Zealand. 2010. Annual report. http://www.nursingcouncil.org.nz/index.cfm/1,48,0,0,html/Annual-Reports 20 Mar 2011.

  • Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scally, G., & Donaldson, L. J. (1998). Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England. British Medical Journal, 317(7150), 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermerhorn, J. (2009). Exploring management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R. (2009). Clinical governance in operation - everybody’s business: A proposed framework. Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 4, 189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behaviour within a labour union: A test of organisational Justice Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, T. L. P., & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. J. (1996). Distributive and procedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 61(3), 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. H., & Dalton, G. W. (1970). Performance appraisal: Managers beware. Harvard Business Review, 48(1), 149–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurston, P., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasset, F., Marnburg, E., & Furnes, T. (2010). Employees perceptions of justice in performance appraisals. Nursing Management, 17(2), 30–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Investigating some neglected criteria: The influence of organizational level and perceived system knowledge on appraisal reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 501–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L., Barnett, P., & Hendry, C. (2001). Clinical leadership and clinical governance: A review of developments in New Zealand and internationally. Wellington: HIIRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorn, T. E. (2000). Conducting thematic analyses of interviews and field notes, unpublished paper. Hamilton: Waikato University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Harcourt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clarke, C., Harcourt, M. & Flynn, M. Clinical Governance, Performance Appraisal and Interactional and Procedural Fairness at a New Zealand Public Hospital. J Bus Ethics 117, 667–678 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1550-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1550-9

Keywords

Navigation