Preizer (2014)

DO RATEES PERCEPTIONS ABOUT PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS MATTER? THE ANTECEDENTS AND

CONSEQUENCES OF RATEES PERCEPTIONS ABOUT
EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the College of Business of

Trident University International
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy In Business Administration
by
CPT (R) Alan E. Preizer
Cyprus, California
2014
(Defended April 7, 2014)
Approved by:
Office of Academic Affairs
Dean: Dr. Simcha (Stephen) Pollard
Committee Chair/ Director, PhD Program: Dr. Sigalit Ronen
Committee Member: Dr. David Richards
Committee Member: Dr. Dan Corcoran
UMI Number: 3583088
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3583088
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
2014 Alan Eric Preizer
ii
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
CPT (R) Preizer is a retired US Army Infantry officer. During his 22 year Army
career he rose thru the ranks from private to Company Commander. Along the
way he lead, trained and mentored US Army Rangers, future Army Officers and
newly commissioned Infantry LTs. He participated in Army level strategic
change initiatives and leadership transformation efforts. CPT(R) Preizer
participated in the formulation of the Warrior Ethos implementation plan for the
Army and was credited as the primary author of the Soldiers Creed (See
http://www.army.mil/values/soldiers.html ). After retiring from the Army, he was
directly involved in preparing deploying units for combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, training and mentoring leaders from virtually every unit deployed
from 2005-2009. Currently he teaches organizational behavior and research
classes. His current research focus is leadership and performance management
specifically, employee evaluations and leader development.
iii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my best friend (some say my only friend) my beautiful
wife Jacque, without her love and support this would not have been possible.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the participation of the 1st Brigade Combat Team
82d Airborne Division Ft Bragg North Carolina.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
iii
DEDICATION
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
viii
LIST OF TABLES
iv
ABSTRACT
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background
Transformational Leadership and Perceptions about Performance
Evaluation Effectiveness
Secure Work Base and Perceptions of Performance Evaluation
Effectiveness
Purpose
Significance
Definitions
12
Research Questions
15
4
7
16
Chapter 2: Literature Review

Transformational Leadership
16
Performance Management
19
Employee Evaluations
20
Employee reactions to performance evaluation
23
Satisfaction, Utility, Fairness vs Effectiveness
24
Performance Evaluation Effectiveness
27
28
Model and Hypotheses

Hypotheses
30
Control variables.
50
52
Purpose and Contribution

Chapter 3: Research Methodology
54
Research Design
54
Population Description
56
Sample population and sampling frame
56
Data Collection Tools
60
Data Collection Method
71
Statistical Analysis
73
vi
Participant Safety and Confidentiality

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Presentation of Results
Characteristics of the Sample
Validity and Reliability Analyses
Scale Analyses
PE Effectiveness
Secure Work Base
Global Transformational Leadership
Turnover Intentions
Job Satisfaction
Unit Cohesion
Scale Correlation Analysis
Multicollinarity Test Results
Measurement Model
Hypothesis Testing
Full Structural Model
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis 8
Hypothesis 9
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications of the Research
Discussion of Findings
TL PE effectiveness direct model.
Mediating effects of PE effectiveness
TL SWB direct model.
Mediating effects of SWB
Implications of the Findings
Theoretical Implications
Practical Implications
Limitations of the Study
Recommendations and Conclusions
References
Appendix (SURVEY)
Informed Consent Document
vii
74
76
76
82
83
84
86
86
87
87
88
90
91
95
96
102
105
109
111
113
116
120
122
124
128
129
129
130
134
135
139
140
142
142
144
145
164
172
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 (Conceptualization of factors involved in the performance evaluation process)
Figure 1.2 (Conceptualization of the theoretical integration based on Leadership Theory)
Figure 2.1 (Conceptual Model)
Figure 3.1 (Study Population)
Figure 3.2 (Sample recruiting flyer)
Figuer 4.1 (Initial Measurment Model)
Figure 4. 2 (Measurement model after modification)
Figure 4.3 (Full Structural Model)
Figuer 4.4 (H1 SEM Path Analysis)
Figure 4.5 (H2 Models)
Figure 4.6 (H3 Model)
Figure 4.8 (H5 SEM Path Analysis Model)
Figuer 4.12 (H9 SEM Path Analysis)
viii
PAGE
3
11
29
59
72
93
94
101
104
108
110
112
115
119
121
123
126
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 (Hypotheses)
Table 2.2 (Demographic Variables)
Table 3.1 (PE effectiveness scale Factor Analysis Pilot #1)
Table 4.1 (Population Demographics)
Table 4.2 (Descriptive statistics about the Performance Management System)
Table 4.3 (Scale summary descriptive statistics)
Table 4.4 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis PE Scale)
Table 4.5 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis SWB Scale)
Table 4.6 (Variable correlations)
Table 4.7 (Collinearity statistics)
Table 4.8 ((Summary of SEM model Fit Indices))
Table 4.9 (Significant Regression Weights, Standardized path coefficients for full
model)
Table 4.10 (H1 Summary)
Table 4.13 (Summary of Hypotheses Testing)
ix
49
50
63
66
77
81
82
84
86
89
90
96
98
103
114
125
127
ABSTRACT
This research set out to further theory within three broad areas. These areas are
transformational leadership theory (TL), secure work base theory (SWB) and the
study of performance management (PM) specifically the performance evaluation
(PE). Contributions to theory have been made by developing and testing nine
specific hypotheses. This study employed advanced mediation analysis and
structural equation modeling to analyze the nine hypotheses and found support for
all nine. The overall findings of this research are as follows: (1) there is a positive
significant relationship between TL and SWB and ratees perception about PE
effectiveness, (2) perceptions about PE effectiveness do mediate the
relationships between TL and work outcomes (unit cohesion, job satisfaction and
turnover intentions), (3) perceptions about SWB do mediate the relationship
between rater leadership style and work outcomes (unit cohesion, job satisfaction
and turnover intentions) and (4) there is a significant positive relationship
between ratees perceptions of SWB and ratees perceptions about PE
effectiveness. Significant to this research is the introduction of the construct of
perceived PE effectiveness. This study has resulted in validated scale to measure
this novel construct. The insights gained from this research will contribute to
theory as well as have managerial implications. This study provides information
that will help organizations develop and implement policies and procedures that
will lead to a more effective PE and ultimately a more efficient PM system.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction
Employee performance management (PM) is an unavoidable element of
organizational life. As a point of fact, effective PM is a stated strategic goal of
most organizations (Longenecker & Fink, 1999). Past research has explored the
challenges associated with PM and identified effective PM as an essential leader
function (Jawahar, 2006; Pulakos & O'Leary, 2011; Roberts, 1994). In spite of
this focus, organizations tend not to have a validated framework for the execution
of this HR system (Fletcher, 2004). It is partly because of this strategic
importance that PM, specifically employee performance evaluations (PE)
continues to be one of the most widely researched areas in
industrial/organizational psychology (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
Within the research, several sub-topics relating to employee perceptions are
prevalent. The most researched subjects include employee satisfaction with the
PE, perceptions about the utility of the evaluation and employee perceptions about
the fairness of the PE (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998).
Even with this established research stream a significant gap in the
literature exists regarding some important relationships. First, there is little or no
specific research into followers perceptions about PE effectiveness. Secondly,
past studies lack any depth of inquiry into the relationship between the specific
skills, traits or attributes of the leader charged with performing the evaluation and
the followers perceptions about PE effectiveness. Finally, there is a gap in the
research into how perceptions about PE effectiveness affects other outcomes such
1
as perceptions of secure work base (SWB), job satisfaction, turnover intention and
unit cohesion.
Background
Practitioners sometimes refer to PM as the Achilles Heel of human
capital management (Pulakos & O'Leary, 2011). This perception is partly due to
the inherent complexities in both the design of an effective system and the actual
implementation of the evaluation process. In spite of this fact, it is unquestionably
important to have a system that is perceived by employees as being effective.
The PM process is a complex event that operates within the organization
and includes a wide range of activities. The purpose of the PM process is to
enhance the performance of individuals and groups, with the ultimate purpose of
improving organizational effectiveness (DeNisi, 2000). The PM process is
impacted by environmental, organizational and individual factors (Lawler, 2010).
Figure 1.1 (Conceptualization of factors involved in the performance evaluation

process {information taken from Lawler, 2010})
Past research (Aguinis, 2007; Lawler, 2008, 2010) identifies four essential
activities (identified as pillars) of an effective PM system. First, the PM system
must outline a specific set of job requirements. These requirements must then be
associated with specific performance requirements. The important part of this
function is that these requirements are mutually agreed upon. Second, the PM
system must include processes that will provide for the development of
employees skills and knowledge. This development function facilitates the
effective performance development of required job functions. Third, the PM
system should be designed in such a way, as to motivate individuals to perform
effectively. Finally, the PM system should be linked (provide data to) to the
organizations human resource management systems.
G. E. Roberts (1994) points out that the effectiveness of a PM system is
particularly contingent on the attitudes of the users (i.e., both raters and ratees).
3
Following this argument, this research attempts to increase the understanding of

the antecedents and consequences of ratees perceptions regarding PE
effectiveness. Transformational Leadership (TL) and Secure Work Base (SWB)
are identified in this study as two variables that may predict perceptions of PE
effectiveness. Individuals perceptions about the effectiveness of PE are said to
be influenced by both individual and environmental factors (Fletcher, 2002). This
research presents the leadership style of the rater (TL) and the ratees perceptions
of SWB as such factors. This research attempts to improve both academic and
practitioners knowledge about variables that affect perceptions about PE
effectiveness (TL and SWB) as well as outcomes that are impacted by these
perceptions (unit cohesion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions).
Transformational Leadership and Perceptions about Performance Evaluation
Effectiveness
Transformational leaders enhance the performance capacity of their
followers by setting higher expectations and generating a greater willingness to
address even the most difficult challenges (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998). Bass
(1985) identified four components of TL; (1) Intellectual Stimulation
transformational leaders do not accept the status quo and encourage creativity
among followers. The transformational leader is always first to encourage
followers to explore new ways of doing things and new opportunities to learn, (2)
Individualized Consideration TL involves being supportive and encouraging to
followers as individuals. This will help to build supportive relationships. The
transformational leader maintains open lines of communication with followers to
allow for direct sharing of ideas. The transformational leader will offer direct
recognition of each followers unique contributions, (3) Inspirational Motivation
transformational leaders are able to articulate a clear vision to followers. The
transformational leader imbues the follower with this vision to help followers
experience the same passion and motivation to fulfill these goals, and (4)
Idealized Influence The transformational leader is a role model for followers.
Followers naturally wish to emulate the transformational leader and will
internalize his or her ideals. This is due to the trust and confidence that the
transformational leader builds in the follower.
Bass further differentiates authentic transformational leadership from nonauthentic (pseudo-transformational) and transactional leadership by identifying
the moral foundation of truly transformational leadership. (Bass & Bass, 2008;
Bass & Riggio, 2006). Additionally, the leader who is viewed as transformational
must also be viewed as having charisma (Bass, 1990). Transformational leaders
provide followers with a clear sense of purpose that is energizing.
Transformational leaders provide a role model and builds identification with the
leaders vision (Avolio, 1999). Transformational leaders set examples that
followers want to emulate. Transformational leaders develop and use multiple
strategies that serve to empower followers, change values, norms and attitudes to
those that are consistent with the leaders vision (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1999).
Conger (1999) further make the point that this shared vision must be anchored in
a set of deeply held values as well as be linked to the fulfillment of followers
expectations of the leader. The effective transformational leader must regularly
fulfill the expectations followers have of their leader (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). In
order to fulfill these expectations leaders must understand that fulfillment of
followers expectations (whether established or fulfilled) must originate in the
personal values of the leader.
The model of transactional and transformational leaders (Bass, 1985)
contends that "most leaders do both (transformation and transaction) in different
amounts" and establishes a continuum of movement from transactional to
transformational leadership. It is important to note that this research does not look
at the relationship between the positive aspects of transactional leadership
(contingent reward) and work outcomes as evidenced in past research. For
example, Avolio and Bass (1995) found that the more effective leaders are those
are those that possess both transactional and transformational leadership.
Additionally, the positive aspects of transactional leadership have also shown
correlation with work outcomes such as job satisfaction, motivation and leader
performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
Bass (1985) says The transactional leaders works within the
organizational culture as it exists; the transformational leader changes the
organizational culture. The transformational leader gains influence from the
demonstration of personal characteristics as described in Bass and Avolio (1988)
and Bass (1985). This influence should serve as a catalyst that influences ratees
perceptions about the PE.
Past empirical research and meta-analyses into TL has shown linkages
between this leadership styles and work outcomes such as unit cohesion,
performance, leader effectiveness, and job satisfaction (Bass, Jung, Avolio, &
Berson, 2003; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Secure Work Base and Perceptions of Performance Evaluation Effectiveness
Bowlby (1973) suggested that experiences of security within close
relationships helped to foster the development of a secure attachment. This leads
to the perception of a secure base from which individuals can interact with the
work environment unfettered by the worry of unfulfilled attachment needs.
Bowlby (1973) further described the concept of a secure base as
one of being available, ready to respond when called upon to
encourage and perhaps assist, but to intervene actively only when
clearly necessary. In these respects it is a role similar to that of the
officer commanding a military base from which an expeditionary
force sets out and to which it can retreat, should it meet with a
setback. Much of the time the role of the base is a waiting one but
it is none the less vital for that. For it is only when the officer
commanding the expeditionary force is confident his base is secure
that he dare press forward and take risks (p. 11).
Feeney and Thrush (2010) provide a view of the secure base that involved
three main behavioral tendencies: being available to fulfill a persons need in
comfort and assistance, encouraging a person to pursue his or her personal goals,
and not interfering with a persons initiatives and activities. These three
behavioral tendencies seem to match the three basic psychological needs (the
need for relatedness, the need for competence, the need for autonomy) identified
by Deci and Ryan (1985). Feeney and Thrush (2010) point out that
encouragement and acceptance of a persons exploration and autonomy needs will
motivate individuals to take on challenges, pursue personal goals, and learn new
skills and perspectives. It seems to be logical that individuals who are more
motivated by the sense of SWB will perceive more effective PE process. Noninterference is another important component of secure base provision discussed
by Feeney and Thrush (2010). Past research has shown managers who are
perceived as non-interfering (those who supported employee autonomy) had
employees who reported higher job satisfaction (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989).
There is initial evidence that elements of SWB are related to positive work
outcomes such as unit cohesion (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) and negative
outcomes such as job burnout and job dissatisfaction (Ronen & Mikulincer,
2012).
The SWB base is a type of support that helps sustain a context-specific
sense of confidence in oneself as a valuable, competent, and autonomous member
of a working group (p.20). Building on SWB and TL theory this research will
explore the mediating effect of SWB on the link between TL and perception of
PE. This research posits that TL will enhance a sense of SWB among
subordinates and that this in turn will promote positive perceptions about the
effectiveness of the PE. Additionally, this research explored the mediating effect
of SWB on the relationship between rater TL and work outcomes (unit cohesion,
job satisfaction and turnover intentions).
Purpose
The broad purpose of this research is to further theory in three areas, TL,
SWB and PM. The narrow purpose is four fold, First, to study the effect TL and
SWB have on ratees perception about PE effectiveness. Second, this study will
explore the relationship between TL and perceptions about SWB. Third, this
study will investigate whether perceptions about PE effectiveness mediate the
turnover intentions). Finally, this research will study whether perceptions about
SWB mediate the relationship between rater leadership style and work outcomes
(unit cohesion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions).
Significance
There is a significant science-practice gap in the study of PM (Aguinis,
2007). Aguinis and Pierce (2008) go so far as to declare that entire bodies of
research remain ignored by managers and other organizational decision makers
(p.139). This research attempts to partially fill this gap as it applies to
understanding perceptions about PE effectiveness from the perspective of the
ratee. Additionally, the research provides specific actionable information to
organizations that will aid in the understanding of how TL and perceptions of
SWB affect perception about PE effectiveness. This is significant because it is
advancing the study of TL and SWB into the realm of PM (perceptions about PE
effectiveness). This is a research area that has yet to be explored. Also significant
is the studying of possible mediating effect SWB has on relationship between TL
and work outcomes (unit cohesion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions). This
understanding will aid organizations in the development and implementation of
9
policies and procedures leading to more effective PE and ultimately more

efficient PM systems.
Although the study of PE is found within the I/O psychology,
organizational psychology, strategic human resources and leadership fields, this
researcher believes it is clearly a leadership issue. The theoretical underpinning
for the leadership theory applied in this research is found within the work of
(Yukl & Van Fleet, 2006), Bass, (1985, 1990) and concepts described in US
Army Field Manual 6.22. The Armys leadership doctrinal manual, Field
Manual (FM) 6.22, defines leadership as the process of influencing people by
providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the
mission and improve the organization. (p. 1-2). Yukl and Van Fleet (2006)
defines leadership as the process of influencing others to understand and agree
about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating
individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives (p. 8). Bass and
Avolio (1989) make the assertion that Transformational leadership is closer to
the prototype of leadership that people have in mind when they describe their
ideal leader, and it is more likely to provide a role model with which subordinates
want to identify (p. 54).
The importance of a leaders responsibility to facilitate the training of
subordinates cannot be understated (Army Leadership, 2006; Bass, 1985, 1990,
Yukl & Van Fleet, 2006). Critical to training is evaluating the employees
progress thereby setting the stage for the employee to develop along a specific
path (Lawler, 2010). The PE is a mechanism used to accomplish this function
10
(Alston & Mujtaba, 2009). Further, the evaluation system will not be effective if
the leader (rater) is unskilled at conducting the evaluation interview or fails to
provide clear guidance and counseling (Roberts, 2003). During the PE process
(see Figure 2), the leader must effectively communicate with the follower in an
effort to motivate and influence the follower to achieve specific outcomes
(Wisecarver, Schneider, Foldes, & Cullen, 2011). This research explored the
perceived effectiveness of PE as a leadership outcome influenced by the
leadership style of the rater.
Figure 1.2 (Conceptualization of the theoretical integration based on
Leadership Theory {Adapted from: Yukl, (2006) & Army FM 6.22, (2006})
As stated earlier, individuals perceptions about the effectiveness of PE

are said to be influenced by both individual and environmental factors (Fletcher,
2002). This research looked at the leadership style of the rater (TL) and the
ratees perceptions of SWB as such factors in an attempt to improve both
11
academic and practitioners knowledge about variables that affect perceptions

about PE effectiveness (TL and SWB) and the outcomes that are impacted by
these perceptions (unit cohesion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions). This
research postulates that an individuals perceptions about SWB are influenced by
his or her raters leadership style and that those perceptions have an impact on
how effective the follower perceives a PE to be. Additionally, perceptions about
the effectiveness of the PE and perceptions about SWB will influence three
important work outcomes: unit cohesion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions.
Definitions
The definition of TL used in this research is based on the work of Bass
(1985) and (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) and defines TL
using the six behaviors outlined in Carless, Wearing & Mann, (2000, p.390).
These behaviors form a global measure of TL and include: (1) identifying and
articulating a vision, (2) providing an appropriate model, (3) fostering the
acceptance of group goals, (4) high performance expectations, (5) providing
individualized support to staff, and (6) intellectual stimulation.
Secure work base (SWB) is defined as a sense of security that develops
from daily interactions with the organization or any of its members where
employees feel that support is available when needed, that their capabilities and
efforts are being affirmed and appreciated, and where their acts and initiatives are
not being interfered or interrupted (Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012, p. 7). This
definition of SWB draws on adult attachment research (Feeney & Thrush, 2010)
in an attempt to further define how Bowlbys concept of a secure base (Bowlby,
12
1973, 1982) can and will apply to work situations. Additionally, the SWB
concept draws heavily on Self-Determination Theory (Deci et al., 1989; Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 2008) specifically arguing that for an individual to feel secure within
the work base his or her fundamental psychological needs (relatedness,
competence, and autonomy) must be met.
This research defines PE effectiveness as: the ratees conscious
recognition that the evaluation accurately and adequately evaluates his or her
actual performance over a set period of time, and that the evaluation is based on
goals and objectives developed jointly with the rater, further, that the ratee
perceives the evaluation system to be purposeful and useful to both the ratee and
the organization.
Unit cohesion is defined as the degree to which mechanisms of social
control operant in a unit maintain a structured pattern of social relationships
between unit members, individually and collectively, necessary to achieve the
unit's purpose (Siebold & Kelly, 1987, p.5). The components of small unit
cohesion outlined in Siebold, (1999) are: 1. horizontal cohesion-peer bonding
and teamwork; 2.vertical cohesion-leader caring and leader competence; and 3.
organizational cohesion-pride and shared values, and attainment of needs and
goals (p.19).
Job Satisfaction This research uses the widely used job satisfaction
definition of Locke, (1976) who defined JS as . . . a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (p.
1304).
13
Turnover Intention Finding its conceptual roots within past behavioral

intentions model such as the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned
behavior postulated by Fishbein and Ajzen (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975) and (Ajzen, 1991). Intent to leave has been established as being a
cause of turnover (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Tett & Meyer, 1993). This
research defines intent to leave as the subjective estimation of an individual
regarding the probability of leaving an organization in the near future (Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982). Due to the nature of the survey population (US Army)
and the fact that Soldiers are under contract and cannot quit the definition is
modified as such: the subjective estimation of an individual regarding the
probability of leaving the Army within a specific period of time.
14
Research Questions
This research address the following specific questions:
Research Question #1 What is the relationship between raters leadership style
and ratees perceptions about PE effectiveness?
Research Question #2 What is the relationship between raters leadership style
and ratees perceptions about SWB?
Research Question #3 What is the relationship between ratees perceptions of
SWB and ratees perceptions about PE effectiveness?
Research Question #4 To what extent do perceptions about PE effectiveness
mediate the relationship between rater leadership style and work outcomes (unit
cohesion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions)?
Research Question #5 To what extent do perceptions about SWB mediate the
relationship between rater leadership style and work outcomes (unit cohesion, job
satisfaction and turnover intentions)?
15
Chapter 2: Literature Review

Transformational Leadership
Over the past seventy years, the study of leadership has evolved from
having an almost singular focus on individual traits of the leader to being a
diverse and ever expanding study of the interactions between individuals and
groups in terms of actions and reactions of individual leaders and the
organizations they lead (Avolio, 1999).
The literature and research into what has become TL theory had its genesis
in Webers (1947) work on charismatic leadership. James Macgregor Burns
(1978) continued and expanded on this theory and coined the terms transactional
leadership and transformational leadership. Burns (1978) posited there was a
development from transactional to transformational and made an important
distinction between the two leadership styles. Burns, (1978) maintained that this
development can be seen as a process whereby the individual leader elevates
people from satisfying lower to higher levels of needs (Drawing upon Abraham
Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and moral development (Drawing upon Lawrence
Kohlberg's theories of moral stages of development). Once leaders can attain the
ability to be self-actualizing individuals and are motivated to grow and achieve,
TL can be displayed.
Bernard Bass (1985) expanding on theories of both Weber (1948) and
Burns (1978) developed a model of transactional and transformational leaders.
Bass defined leadership as, an interaction between two or more members of a
group that often involves structuring or restructuring of the situation and the
16
perceptions of the members. Leaders are agents of change - persons whose acts
affect other people more than other peoples acts affect them (Bass, 1990, p.18).
Leadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or
competencies of others in the group (Bass, 1990, p. 19-20). Bass further stated
that the transformational leader recognizes the transactional needs in potential
followers but tends to go further, seeking to arouse and satisfy higher needs, to
engage the full person of the follower to a higher level of need according to
Maslows hierarchy of needs (Bass, (1985, p. 20).
In 1995 Bennis and Nanus conducted a study with ninety top leaders.
They identified specific important leader traits. These traits included logical
thinking, persistence, empowerment, and self-control. They also identified the
articulated differences between transactional and transformational leaders making
the point that the transformational leaders job is to communicate vision and
values with significant clarity that enables self-empowered followers know where
to go (Bennis & Nanus, 1995).
Past research into associations between leadership orientations
(transactional vs. transformational) has reported links with a broad range of
follower outcomes (Avoilio, et. al., 2009). Additionally, past research included
reported findings that provide positive evidence linking TL (as well as the
positive contingent reward aspect of transactional leaders) to subordinates
satisfaction with their leaders (Bennett, 2009). Further, Bommer, Rubin, and
Baldwin (2004) found followers of transformational leaders are more likely to be
accepting of organizational change. In addition, studies have shown
17
transformational leaders to be more positively associated with team cohesiveness,

work unit effectiveness and organizational learning (Lowe et al., 1996;
Stashevsky & Koslowsky, 2006; Zagorsek, Dimovski, & Skerlavaj, 2009). Also,
past research has linked TL to prevention of work related problems, (Berson &
Avolio, 2004) increased organizational commitment, (Scandura & Williams,
2004) decreased turnover intentions (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004) and overall
increased job satisfaction; (Omar, & FauziHussin, 2013; Nemanich & Keller,
2007; Scandura & Williams, 2004). Finally, past meta-analysis, (Bono & Judge,
2004; Judge, Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. , 2002; Judge & Piccolo,
2004; Lowe et al., 1996) have reported on the structure, effects and correlations
between TL on both individual and organizational outcomes.
Bass et al., (2003) studied the TL of 72 US Army Platoon Leaders and
Platoon Sergeants finding TL predictive of unit performance for both platoon
leaders and platoon sergeants, with platoon sergeants being more highly
correlated with TL. In addition, TL correlated positively with ratings of unit
potency and unit cohesion. Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir, 2002 conducted a
longitudinal, randomized field experiment aimed at studying the impact of TL
within a sample of Israeli military leaders reporting that TL enhanced motivation,
morality, and empowerment of direct followers. Ivey and Kline, (2010) examined
the effects of TL, contingent reward, and active management-by-exception
leadership across ranks in the Canadian military. This research found that
subordinates expect TL from superiors. Additionally, TL was perceived to be
18
more effective at all hierarchical levels and had positive impact on followers job
satisfaction and their attitudes toward their supervisors.
Bass and Riggio, (2006) make the point that future research needs to focus
on followers of transformational leaders. This research focuses on followers
perceptions (PE effectiveness and SWB) and the link between raters TL and
these perceptions. Additionally, this research focused on the predictive value of
those perceptions on work outcomes such as unit cohesion, job satisfaction and
turnover intention.
Performance Management
A 2006 survey of organizations from 15 different countries (60% being
multinational companies) reported that 91 percent implement some form of a
formal PM system (Cascio, 2006). Additionally, those organizations that operate a
formal and systematic performance management system are 51 percent more
likely to perform better than the other organizations on financial outcomes, and 41
percent more likely to perform better on other outcomes such as customer
satisfaction and employee retention (Cascio, 2006).
Cleveland, Murphy, and Williams (1989) outline six important purposes
of an effective PM system. The PM system has a strategic purpose - linking
organizational goals with individual goals. The PM system has an administrative
purpose- providing a source of valid and useful information to assist in decision
making about employee actions such as salary adjustments, promotions, employee
retention or termination, recognition of superior performance, identification of
poor performers, layoffs, and merit increases. The PM system has a
19
communication purpose facilitating the effective flow of information between

employer and employee about how well they are doing, provides information on
specific areas that may need improvement, and informs employee about the
organizations and the supervisors expectations and priorities. The PM system
has a developmental purpose- creating an environment where leaders can coach
employees and help them improve performance on an ongoing basis. The PM
system has an organizational maintenance purpose - collecting data on individual
employee skills, abilities, promotional potential, and assignment histories that can
be used in talent management planning and for evaluating the effectiveness of
human resource interventions (such as effectiveness of a training program).
Finally, the PM system has a documentation purpose- providing a record for
protection of both the individual and organization.
PM systems can be based on one or more of the following factors: (1) how
work is completed (behaviors), (2) what work is completed (results or outcomes),
and/or (3) competencies and skills of individual workers (Aguinis & Pierce,
2008). Research into PM systems has shown that poorly implemented systems
lead to employee burnout and job dissatisfaction, damaged relationships, and
increased turnover (Brown & Benson, 2005; Gabris & Ihrke, 2001).
Employee Evaluations
Performance appraisal/evaluation is a generic term that describes the
varying activities and processes an organization uses to assess, develop and
enhance employee performance (Fletcher, 2001). PE is part of the cyclical
process of PM (prerequisites, performance planning, performance execution,
20
performance assessment, performance review, and performance renewal and recontracting). During the evaluation stage, the rater communicates to the ratee the
extent to which the desired behaviors have been displayed, and whether the
desired results have been achieved (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008). The evaluation of
employee performance is one of if not the most important roles of the human
resource (HR) function. Additionally, as pointed out in the introduction, employee
evaluation is one of the most widely researched areas in industrial-organizational
psychology (Fletcher, 2002; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Some researchers
(Derven, 1990) believe no PM system can be perfected to the point of being fully
useful therefore; scarce organizational resources are better used elsewhere. Others
believe that PM is a critical part of the functioning of an effective organization
(Lawrie, 1990) so it is appropriate to place emphasis on the development and
implementation of an effective system.
A review of the literature indicates that practitioners have a keen interest
in issues related to performance management. A simple Google search reveals no
shortage of practitioner related information about talent
management/development, leadership development, performance evaluations
(system related and individual techniques and best practices) as well as
technological (software) solutions to the issues involved with performance
management. These resources attempt to keep pace with the intensification of
work demands as employers try to increase productivity with fewer employees,
and managing change (Aguinis, 2007). An EBSCO Academic Search Complete
(from 2000-2012) resulted in excess of 500 articles published in peer reviewed
21
academic journals with the term performance appraisal in the title. This reflects
the interest in and the importance of the subject.
Over the past 20 years, research into employee evaluations has generally
focused on: (1) the PE systems purpose and or methods as related to
organizational outcomes (2) the individual employees perceptions of fairness and
justice and (3) the appraisal system as an antecedent for employee satisfaction.
There is a notable gap in the literature concerning ratees perceptions about PE
effectiveness and its influence on work-related outcomes.
In the academic realm, performance appraisal/feedback is a popular
research topic. In fact, from 2003-2007 performance appraisal/feedback was in
the top 5 of the most popular topics published in the Journal of Applied
Psychology (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008). It is evident that both academics and
practitioners are aware how the signals managers send out to their employees
through the design and implementation of their PM systems (specifically the PE)
impacts individual and organizational outcomes.
There is a consensus among performance appraisal researchers and
practitioners alike that the assessment of employees reaction to the
evaluation/appraisal is important but lacking (Keeping & Levy, 2000). Murphy
and Cleveland (1995) argue that in order for a performance evaluation to have a
positive influence on employee behavior, employees must perceive the appraisal
as effective. Even with this focus, no study heretofore has looked at the ratees
perceptions about PE effectiveness instead past research has focused on other
22
perceptions such as fairness with the process, perceptions about utility or use and
the satisfaction it raises among employees.
Even with this demonstrated amount of both practitioner and academic
research into the subject, consensus cannot be reached on- what is the most
effective way to perform evaluations or what the consequences for an improperly
managed evaluation system might be. This research attempts to provide insight
into PE effectiveness from the point of view of the recipient of the evaluation.
Employee reactions to performance evaluation
Past research on PE has focused on rating errors and rating accuracy with
less attention given to criteria such as subordinates' reactions to appraisals and the
factors contributing to these reactions (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994; Murphy &
Cleveland, 1995). More recently, a Pichler (2012) meta-analysis into the
literature on PE indicated that the perceptions of the ratee (i.e., satisfaction with
rater, perceptions of support received, trust in rater) are strongly related to ratee
reactions to PE.
Employee satisfaction with PE is the most frequently measured appraisal
reaction (Keeping & Levy, 2000). Ahmed, Hussain, and Ahmed, (2010)
conducted research to examine the impact of employee satisfaction with the PE on
employee overall job satisfaction and turnover intentions in SGOs of Pakistan.
This research found support for a positive relationship between satisfaction with
PE and employee overall job satisfaction and negative relationship between
satisfaction with PE and turnover intentions. Jawahar (2006) found satisfaction
with rater and previous performance ratings to positively influence employees
23
satisfaction with appraisal feedback. In addition, satisfaction with appraisal was

found to be positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment
and negatively related to turnover intentions.
Satisfaction, Utility, Fairness vs Effectiveness
Past research (e.g., Ahmed et al., 2010; Jawahar, 2006) into employee
reactions to PE has shown a focus on the employees global satisfaction with the
PE and do not necessarily measure whether or not the employee perceives the PE
to be effective. Past studies into fairness (Boachie-Mensah & Seidu, 2012) or
perceptions about the use of the PE (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000) also do not
address whether these issues contribute to whether or not the PE is perceived to be
effective. Past studies that measured individuals satisfaction with the PE have not
necessarily measured the underlying perceptions about the effectiveness of the
PE. It is wholly possible that an individual who receives what he or she perceives
as a positive evaluation could be satisfied and still perceive the PE to be
ineffective.
Many studies have demonstrated a strong link between employees
perceptions regarding the PE and work outcomes. For example, Vasset,
Marnburg, and Furunes (2010) found that the most important element in
employees' perceptions of procedural justice in PE is the followers ability to
contribute. Boswell and Boudreau (2000) conducted research into perceptions
about PE use, and reported that positive perceptions about use are related to
employees job satisfaction. This research looked at the link between perceptions
of PE effectiveness and job satisfaction.
24
A study conducted by (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007) found that the
perceived purpose of the PE influences ratees perceptions of and attitudes toward
their jobs. Additionally, a positive relationship between employees attitudes and
procedurally just PE was also observed. Again, this research focused on attitude
relating to a specific question that had to do with the execution of the PE and not
the employees perceptions about PE effectiveness as with this study. The fact
that the individual sees a PE to be just (or fair for that matter) may not necessarily
indicate the employee perceived said PE to be effective.
Gabris and Ihrke (2001) examined the relationship between aspects of PE
(instrument validity, distributive justice, and procedural justice) and burnout and
job satisfaction. The results indicated a positive relationship between the three
justice-related variables and job satisfaction, and negative relationship between
procedural and distributive justice and job burnout within a sample of
professional county employees. This research focused on narrow elements within
the PE and although employees may perceive the instrument to be valid and the
PE to be executed in a just manner they may still not believe the PE was effective.
Boachie-Mensah and Seidu (2012) conducted a case study that focused on
employees perceptions of PE biases or errors such as the halo effect, leniency,
strictness or central tendency error that are common in PE literature (Fletcher,
2001; Hennessey & Bernardin, 2003). The results showed that employees
perceived that the PE system in their institutions is affected by subjectivity and by
common errors. Karimi, Malik, and Hussain (2011) examined the relationship
between the PE system and employee satisfaction within a sample of 101
25
employees working at an international not for profit organization finding a

positive relationship between perceptions of fair PE system and overall job
satisfaction. Overall, the above findings indicate that employees perceptions
regarding PE can predict work outcomes such as job satisfaction.
The research mentioned above indicates a significant body of research that
studies employee reactions to the PE. However, the focus is on perceptions of
fairness, justice, utility and satisfaction with no mention of PE effectiveness. The
question of effectiveness is a natural extension of the other reactions in that we
now can answer the question of so what. So what if the PE is perceived fair or
just, does that mean it is effective in the mind of the ratee? This research
addresses that question.
The Oxford online dictionary defines satisfaction as the fulfillment of
ones wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure derived from something or
someone. Similarly, when something is perceived to be effective, it is thought to
be meeting an intended or expected outcome. Global satisfaction with the PE is a
different construct than PE effectiveness in that satisfaction indicates a meeting of
overall expectations about the evaluation whereas effectiveness is more directly
related to whether or not the evaluation gets the right things done and is effective
at meeting the established purpose of the evaluation. It is quite possible that an
individual could be satisfied with the PE and perceive it to be ineffective. This
research introduces the construct of PE effectiveness in an attempt to provide
specific actionable information regarding individuals perceptions about PE
effectiveness. This differs from past research (e.g., utility, fairness, justice, use) in
26
that these constructs only provide general information and do not provide the
why. The construct of PE effectiveness allows for the gathering of specifics that
will lead to the ability to make recommendations on how to improve perceptions.
Performance Evaluation Effectiveness
Past literature (e.g., Cawley, Keeping & Levy 2001; Keeping & Levy,
2000; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995; Roberts, 2000, 2003, 2001;) indicates that
the definition of PE effectiveness should include factors related to the overall
effectiveness of the evaluation system as well as the overall effectiveness of the
employees last evaluation. Roberts (1994) proposed that followers acceptance of
the evaluation will be maximized when, the performance measurement process is
perceived to be accurate, the system is administered fairly, the appraisal system is
congruent or doesn't conflict with the employee's personal goals and values, and
when the appraisal process does not exceed the bounds of the "psychological
contract" between leader and the follower (p. 526). These factors are
incorporated into a measure of perceived PE effectiveness.
27
Model and Hypotheses

The conceptual model proposes: (1) There is a positive relationship
between rater TL and ratees perceptions about PE effectiveness (2) there is a
positive relationship between rater TL and ratees perceptions of SWB, (3) there
is a positive relationship between ratees perceptions of SWB and ratees
perceptions about PE effectiveness (4) ratee perceptions about PE effectiveness
will mediate the relationship between TL and work outcomes (cohesion, job
satisfaction, turnover intention) and finally (5) ratee perceptions about SWB will
mediate the relationship between TL and work outcomes (cohesion, job
satisfaction, turnover intention).
28
Figure 2.1 (Conceptual Model)
29
Hypotheses
The concepts behind TL form the essence of what the US Army calls
adaptive leadership (U.S. Army doctrine Field Manual 6.22). Adaptive leaders
are able to build teams, operate within established intent and take required actions
to move a group of individuals towards a desired end state in an ambiguous
environment. An adaptive leader (Bass, 1985 labeled this type of adaptive
leadership as transformational) works effectively in rapidly changing
environments by helping to make sense of and responding to the challenges
confronted by both leaders and followers. An adaptive leader will work with and
develop followers abilities to handle a broader range of leadership
responsibilities (Bass et al., 2003).
Part of every leaders responsibility is to conduct effective PE on
individuals within his or her team or organization. The US Army teaches and
trains its leaders that, to be perceived as effective during the PE process leaders
must demonstrate certain qualities (respect for followers, self and cultural
awareness, credibility and empathy) and skills (active listening, responding and
questioning) (Army Leadership, 1999, 2006). There is a commonality between
these qualities and skills and those of the transformational leader.
TL comprises four primary behaviors (Bass, 1985). First, a
transformational leader exhibits idealized influence, by demonstrating consistency
and reliability and thus gaining the trust of others. If the individual being
evaluated trusts the evaluator, he or she is must more likely to be open and this
openness should lead to stronger feelings about the effectiveness of the
30
evaluation. Second, transformational leaders act to inspire others by

communicating compelling visions of the future and by emphasizing to
subordinates how their work contributes to the achievement of the vision; this
behavior is referred to as inspirational motivation. The rater who is able to imbue
a vision can also be seen as having the ability to effectively communicate this to
the ratee therefore increasing the perceived effectiveness of the performance
evaluation. The communication of vision is not limited to the vision of the
organization but also includes communicating how the individual fits into the
organization and how the individual being evaluated work fits into and
contributes to the attainment of the vision (Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley, &
Barrick, 2008). Third, through the behavior of intellectual stimulation, the
transformational leader provides a safe environment in which others can think
creatively and challenge the status quo. Finally, the transformational leader
exhibits the behavior of individualized consideration by recognizing the
developmental needs of others and providing support to their followers.
It can be assumed that a rater with the ability to communicate an
organizational vision and motivate the ratee towards the attainment of this shared
vision would identify individual developmental needs, communicate to ratee how
to improve within a personalized PE process. Moreover, it is more likely that such
a leader will communicate an evaluation that is perceived to be more effective.
The transformational leader is adept at making the subordinate feel they are being
heard. Past research has shown that sensing that ones voice has been heard is a
strong predictor of positive reactions to the performance appraisal processes
31
(Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998). Contrast this with the transactional rater that
would hold ratees to achieving agreed-upon objectives (unemotionally, black and
white) but would not fulfill psychological needs of the ratee or encourage them to
assume greater responsibility for developing and leading themselves (Bass, 1985;
Burns, 1978). This research hypothesized that: the rater who is more
transformational will have ratees that perceive the PE to be more effective.
H1: There is a positive relationship between rater TL and ratee perceptions
about PE effectiveness
TL effect on work outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intention and unit
cohesion) is well researched. Transformational leadership has been shown to have
positive influence followers performance and innovation (Boerner, Eisenbeiss, &
Griesser, 2007). Transformational leadership is also more significantly associated
with team cohesiveness, work unit effectiveness and organizational learning as
compared to other leadership styles (Lowe et al., 1996; Stashevsky and
Koslowsky, 2006; Zagorsek et al., 2008). Further, past meta-analysis into
associations between leadership orientations and work outcomes has reported
links with a broad range of follower outcomes (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah,
Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009; Judge, & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996).
Past research into the effect that TL has on unit cohesion has shown it to
have a positive effect (Bass et al., 2003; Hardy, Arthur, Jones, Shariff, Munnoch,
Isaacs, & Allsopp, 2010). The components of unit cohesion outlined in Siebold
(1999) are: 1. horizontal cohesion-peer bonding and teamwork; 2.vertical
cohesion-leader caring and leader competence; and 3. organizational cohesion-
32
pride and shared values, and attainment of needs and goals (p.19). Using the
above definition it can be assumed that cohesion will be increased by
strengthening the bond between the individual leader and the lead, the lead and
the organization and the individual and the organization. Critical also is ensuring
that members of the group are aware of and have by in to the values of the
group. An effective PE that does not conflict with the employee's personal goals
and values but enhances their feelings of pride and attraction to the group will
increase feeling of unit cohesion (Roberts, 1994). The PE that is perceived to be
effective will increase the individuals understanding and acceptance of the
organizational goals as well as strengthen the bond with the leader thereby
increasing feelings of unit cohesion. Additionally, the perception that an
individual is being developed (through an effective PE process) according to his
or her capabilities should increase the vertical bond and thereby strengthen feeling
of cohesion. Gesme and Wiseman (2011) claim that not having an effective PE
system will result in poor office morale, inefficiency, and high turnover rates,
logically we may add low feeling of unit cohesion to this list of negative
outcomes. It is logical to assume that an effective PE evaluation will assist in
providing for the development of bonding within all three components of small
unit cohesion.
One of the reasons for the success of the US military is its understanding
and effective application of leadership, development of leaders, and arguably
most importantly the emphasis on team building and team unit cohesion. Both
Peter Drucker and Jack Welch were once asked a question ---- who does the best
33
job of developing leaders? Without hesitation, both stated that if you really want
to understand leadership and leader development, look to the United States
military. The PE is a forum for the development of ratee and serves as conduit for
the imparting of organizational information. This forum should lead to more
positive feelings of unit cohesion (if perceived to be effective). It is for this
reason that this research hypothesized raters who are identified as
transformational leaders would have ratees who display more feelings of unit
cohesion and that perceptions about the PE would mediate this relationship.
H2: Ratee perceptions of PE Effectiveness will mediate the relationship
between rater TL and ratees feelings about unit cohesion.
Job satisfaction is a feeling of general, overall, or global satisfaction with
the job as a whole (Thompson & Phua, 2012). Satisfaction with the job is an
important job attitude. As with all attitudes, job satisfaction is influenced by the
individuals views about the organization as well as views about the leadership of
the organization (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Past literature has stated
that to be effective the PE should address satisfaction with the job (Fletcher, 2001;
Roberts, 2003). Since it is likely that individuals perceptions about the
effectiveness of their PE will contribute to the evaluation of overall or global job
satisfaction, it is also likely that a more positive perception about the PE will
result in more positive overall job satisfaction.
Transformational leaders are more likely than not to voluntarily assist
employees with issues and are better at creating an environment that is proactive
in preventing the occurrence of work-related problems (Berson & Avolio, 2004).
34
This ultimately enhances job satisfaction among employees (Omar &

FauziHussin, 2013; Nemanich & Keller, 2007; Scandura & Williams, 2004). The
PE process when ongoing and developmental in nature affords the rater the
opportunity to interact with the ratee and serves as a venue for dealing with these
type issues. When PE is done effectively from the perspective of the ratee
increased job satisfaction should also result.
The Job Design model (JDI: Smith et al., 1969) presents job satisfaction
as including five facets: satisfaction with work, supervision, coworkers, pay, and
promotions. These factors among others are shown to contribute to the overall
job satisfaction (Thompson & Phua, 2012). To be perceived effective a PE (as
defined by this study) will accurately and adequately evaluate actual performance
over a set period of time, is based on goals and objectives developed jointly with
the rater, and is perceived as purposeful and useful to both the individual and the
organization.
By its nature, an effective PE will address individual and organizational
issues associated with job satisfaction. Additionally, effective PE will serve as
feedback mechanism. Past research into feedback (information exchange between
rater and ratee within the context of the job) has identified it as a key job
characteristic (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) that is positively related to higher
levels of job satisfaction. The rater who can effectively communicate feedback
with ratees (as transformational leaders are shown to be) will be better able to
gain buy-in on the strategic goals of the organization (Berson & Avolio, 2004).
The PE will provide a mechanism for the leader to communicate this vision of the
35
organization and therefore strengthen the effect that transformational leadership

has on work outcomes. The PE that is perceived more effective is then assumed to
further increase job satisfaction. Based on the above, this research hypothesized
that raters who are identified as transformational to have ratees who display
more feelings of job satisfaction and that perceptions about the PE will mediate
this relationship.
between rater TL and ratees job satisfaction.
Research has shown that turnover intentions lead to actual turnover
activities (Branham, 2012; Brannon, Barry, Kemper, Schreiner, & Vasey, 2007).
Employees intent to leave an organization is not immediate in most cases. This is
a process that involves psychological, cognitive as well as behavioral issues
(Smith, Holtom, & Mitchell, 2011). Therefore, identifying predictors of turnover
intension is important for organizations. Individuals tend to perform better and
are likely to remain in an organization when they are allowed to do their job, are
motivation to do their job and their work environment provides the necessary
support and avenues for expression (Purcell, Kinnie, Hutchinson, Rayton, &
Swart, 2003). An effective PE process should address these specific issues by
providing the employee with purpose, direction, motivation, and feedback. Past
research in psychology, sociology and economics have provided valuable insights
into antecedents for employee turnover (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2010). Branham
(2012) identified the lack of effective feedback (such as that gained during an
effective PE) as a primary reason for employee disengagement and intention to
36
leave. Research has shown the importance on the quality of the employeeorganizational relationship with links being established between turnover
intentions and employee affective commitment (Kuvaas, 2008; Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) and perceived organizational support and
justice perceptions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Strauss, 2008). An
effective PE can be seen as an integral part of the employee-organizational
relationship and reduce turnover intentions.
Griffith (2004) suggests that an individuals overall satisfaction within the
work environment includes satisfaction with their leader and that this satisfaction
in turn has influence over the individuals intention to leave. Individuals who
have higher turnover intentions are further along in the process of disengagement
from an organization. Individuals with higher reported turnover intention caused
by a dysfunctional relationship with the leader are more likely to display intent to
leave (Joiner, Bartram, & Garreffa, 2004). Past meta-analysis within the turnover
literature (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Griffeth et al., 2000) has shown a negative
relationship between satisfaction with a supervisor and actual turnover.
An effective PE should retard the process of disengagement by helping to
develop skills in the rater that allow for the development in the organization. Also
the effective PE will decrease intentions to leave by providing a voice to the
employee that allows for open communication. The increased communication
allows the ratee to develop a sense of hope, optimism and trust in the
organization. Transformational leaders are able to motivate followers in such a
way as to develop higher levels of organizational commitment, trust and optimism
37
(Bass & Riggio, 2006). Employees who are more committed will have less
turnover intentions (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004; Scandura & Williams, 2004).
Based on past research this research proposed raters who are identified as
transformational to have ratees who display less turnover intention and
perceptions about the PE will mediate this relationship.
between rater TL and ratees turnover intention.
Ronen and Mikulincer (2012) view SWB as a sense of security that
develops from interactions with the organization or any of its members (p.30).
Perception of a SWB will include the ratee feeling that they are provided the
required support when needed, that their capabilities and efforts are being
affirmed and appreciated, and that their acts and initiatives are not being
interfered or interrupted. These three behavioral tendencies seem to match up with
TL behaviors. That is, inspirational motivation involves inspiring others to pursue
goals; intellectual stimulation involves stimulating others and encouraging
creativity (initiative) among followers; idealized influence involves acting as a
role model for followers and finally, individualized consideration involves being
supportive and encouraging to followers as individuals.
The rateerater leader relationships can be said to function in many
respects as an attachment relationship such as that of child and a parent
(Mayseless & Popper, 2007). Further, it can be expected that ratees will form
relationships with their rater that will reflect attachment dynamics (Mayseless &
Popper, 2007). The provision of security and protection (the safe haven and the
38
secure base functions) by social structures, institutions, and leaders is seen as

needed. . . (p.73). Also, is important to understand that ratees are likely to
project certain characteristics that are normally associated with primary caregivers
on to those who are in authority over them (Duncan, 2007). The transformational
leader provides purpose, direction, and motivation and has the ability to project a
sense of confidence that fosters a sense of protection within the subordinate. The
transformational leader draws in the subordinate through his or her inspirational
characteristics. The transformational leader makes the subordinate want to do
what is necessary versus have to do what is required. The transformational rater
(through his or her charismatic traits) is more likely to form an affectional bond
with the ratee and because of this bond the ratee will feel more secure within the
workplace.
The transformational leader is one who is consistently motivating,
encouraging, and contributing to the personal development of their subordinates
(Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass et al., 2003). Critical to the development of this
positive and dynamic relationship is being responsive and projecting an overall
positive outlook. This positive outlook allows for both effective praise and
correction. Given that the ratees perceptions of SWB are likely to be impacted by
the raters ability to effectively praise it seems logical that ratees of
transformational leaders are more likely to perceive a SWB.
Perceptions of a SWB include positive relationships that support
exploration and help to build competence. This focus on interpersonal
relationships is congruent with TL focus on interpersonal relationships (Avolio,
39
1999; Bass, 1990). A rater with more TL characteristics will be more likely to
treat ratees as individuals with different needs, abilities, and aspirations rather
than just as members of the group. The transformational rater will be more
effective at helping to develop ratees strengths while attentively listening to the
ratees concerns.
Ronen and Mikulincer (2012) explain SWB as a type of support that helps
sustain a context-specific sense of confidence in oneself as a valuable, competent,
and autonomous member of a working group (p. 20). Leadership styles that
emphasize empowering followers (e.g., transformational) are more likely to foster
an emotional feeling such as those associated with a secure workplace base. This
research proposed that raters who display more transformational characteristics
will have ratees who perceive more of a SWB.
H5: There is a positive relationship between rater TL and ratee perceptions
about SWB
Groups are seen to be as cohesive when and if the members of the group
are displaying positive behaviors and have positive attitudes and whenever
interactions sustain these conditions (Friedkin, 2004). The concept of
cohesiveness as explored within this research (Siebold & Kelly, 1988) deals with
the extent to which the mechanisms of social control maintain a structured
pattern of social relationships between unit members (p.2). These relationships
include those between peers (described as horizontal bonding), between leaders
and subordinates (vertical bonding) and relationships between individuals and the
organization (organizational bonding). The transformational leader serves as an
40
attachment figure through which the subordinate draws inspiration and energy and
is therefore more likely to feel bonded to the leader (vertical cohesion). The
transformational leader also has the ability to communicate vision. This leads to
organizational buy-in and therefore increased organizational bonding
(organizational cohesion).
The characteristics of the transformational leader are proposed to
influence all three of these relationships. The transformational leader and has the
ability to impart vision, provide support, empower and develop subordinates
(Carless et al., 2000). These positive characteristics are proposed to lead to greater
feelings of cohesion. Additionally, the transformational leader shares power and
information, is innovative and inclusive. Theoretically the transformational leader
possesses the requisite qualities that should lead to increased vertical and
organizational bonding and therefore more feelings of cohesion (Bass et al., 2003;
Hardy et al., 2010). Additionally, past research within the military context (Bass
et. al., 2003) has shown TL to be positively related to unit cohesion.
Perceptions of a SWB also should contribute to shared perceptions about
the organization. SWB develops from interactions with the organization or any
of its members . . . their acts and initiatives are not being interfered or interrupted
(Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012, p.30). Unit cohesion is a unit or group state varying
in the extent to which the mechanisms of social control maintain a structured
pattern of positive social relationships (bonds) between unit members,
individually and collectively, necessary to achieve the unit or groups purpose
(Siebold & Kelly, 1988). Given the similarity in the components of these two
41
psychological states, it makes sense that there should be some link between them.
This research proposes that SWB will contribute to the understanding of why TL
and cohesion are related.
The individuals perception of SWB is proposed to influence how bonded
the individual will feel to both the leader and the organization. When an
individual evaluates the level of care, cooperation, and support he or she feels in
his or her group the resulting feeling can be described as a feeling of unit
cohesion (Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012). Therefore, an individual who does not
perceive an adequate level of care, cooperation, and support is less likely to feel
bonded to the individual leader or the organization. Individuals who perceive a
SWB can count on others to be available in times of trouble and are willing to
take risks because they perceive others to be their safety net (Ronen & Lane,
2013). Individuals who perceive a SWB also perceive the environment to be
encouraging. These individuals believe that they will receive praise in the form of
positive compliments. This individual perceives the work environment as one that
encourages forward momentum (Ronen & Lane, 2013). Siebold and Kelly
(1988) define horizontal bonding as the extent to which peers trust and care
about one another (p.2) and vertical bonding as the degree to which leaders look
out for and help their subordinates (p.2). These components of SWB (availability
and encouragement) are proposed to impact on the development of both vertical
and horizontal bonding and therefore have a mediating effect on the relationship
between TL and perceptions of cohesion.
42
H6: Ratee perceptions of SWB will mediate the relationship between rater
TL and ratees perceptions about unit cohesion
As outlined in the literature review, past research has shown that TL to
have significant influence on the job satisfaction and behaviors of followers
(Nemanich & Keller, 2007; Scandura & Williams 2004). The transformational
leader ". . . recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential
follower. . . [and] looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher
needs, and engages the full person of the follower" (Burns, 1978, p.4). The rater
who is perceived as being transformational will be more available and responsive
to the ratee. This availability and responsiveness will be seen as supportive and
therefore increase the ratees sense of security. This increased sense of security
will should manifest as stronger perceptions of job satisfaction (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2005).
The perception of a SWB assists the individual in developing his or her
positive sense of autonomy, commitment and satisfaction within the workplace
(Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012). The perception of SWB should also lead to higher
feelings of confidence that he or she is a valuable autonomous member of a
working group (Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012) therefore becoming more committed
to the organization.
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2008) holds the view that
an individuals natural or intrinsic functioning will be either facilitated by or
impeded by the social context. Through the process of integration the
transformational leaders values (and therefore the organizations values) are
43
accepted and internalized by the subordinate leading to acceptance and

satisfaction. These values will then become intrinsic to the individual when they
are seen as meeting basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence and
relatedness). The perception of a SWB (reduced intrusiveness availability and
encouragement) is proposed to lead to the formation of a positive work value
orientation and therefore result in higher job satisfaction.
This research proposed that the transformational rater (who is operating within
what the ratee perceives as a secure work base) is more likely to support the
ratees perceptions of self-determination and self-worth (Deci et al., 1989) and
that this will contribute to higher job satisfaction. This research posits that the
relationship between rater TL and ratees feelings of job satisfaction will be
mediated by ratees perceptions about SWB
TL and ratees perceptions about job satisfaction.
In a meta-analysis of the antecedents and correlates to employee turnover
(Griffeth et al., 2000) found intention to quit, job satisfaction, and organizational
support to be predictors of employee turnover. Additionally, research (Brannon et
al., 2007; Tett & Meyer, 1993) has shown that an individuals intention to quit an
organization is impacted on their perceptions about the quality of supervision they
receive. Bass and Riggio (2006) point out that a transformational leader
decreases his/her followers intention to leave by providing the follower with
information on how the goals and values of the group, follower, leader and
organization are in basic agreement (p. 36). Past research (Bass, 1998; Bycio,
44
Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Martin & Epitropaki, 2001; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004;
Wells & Peachey, 2010) has reported that transformational leaders tend to have
employees that show lower intent to leave than employees working for leaders
with other styles.
A perception of a SWB can be considered an indicator of organizational
support (Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012) in that the employee will feel as though they
have a positive connection to the workplace and that the work base provides
adequate support to the individuals as to foster secure feelings. This positive
connection can also be explained as being embedded or committed to the
organization.
Organizational commitment theory is influenced by psychological
attachment theory in that an individual who forms an attachment to the
organization also displays affective commitment to the organization.
Organizational commitment as defined by Meyer et al. (2002) includes three
components (affective or want to stay, continuance or have to stay and
normative or ought to stay). Organizational commitment has been linked to
increased turnover (Meyer, et., al., 2002). Further, research into voluntary
turnover within the military context has consistently shown a negative
relationship between an individuals level of organizational commitment and
turnover intention (Godlewski & Kline, 2012; Holt, Rehg, Lin, & Miller, 2007;
Lytell & Drasgow, 2009). The perception of a secure work should lead to
increased affective commitment and affective commitment has been shown to be
negatively related to turnover intentions.
45
The connection to the organization fostered by the perception of a secure

base can also be related to the concept of job embeddedness. The components of
job embeddedness have shown a negative relationship with turnover intentions
(Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Mitchell et. al., (2001)
describes three components of job embeddedness; fit (compatibility with the
organization and or the community), links (formal and informal connections
within the organization and/or the community) and sacrifice (perceptions of costs
associated with leaving the organization). As discussed earlier, the SWB is a
sense of security that develops from interactions with the organization or any of
its members where employees feel that support is available when needed, that
their capabilities and efforts are being affirmed and appreciated, and where their
acts and initiatives are not being interfered or interrupted. (Ronen & Mikulincer,
2012, p.30).
Employees who intend to leave an organization are in the process of
disengaging from the organization (Hulin, 1991). Several factors can accelerate
this process (and therefore increase intentions to leave). These factors are; the
employee not having his or her expectations about the workplace met, the
employee having negative feelings such as being devalued or unrecognized as a
result of the job, the employee losing trust in leadership and the employee having
overwhelming stress that is perceived as being caused by a work-life imbalance
(Hulin, 1991). This research posits that the perceptions of a SWB will retard the
process of disengagement by providing positive connections that counter or
prevent the development of these negative feelings. This will decrease the
46
employees intention to leave the organization. Further, the relationship between

rater TL and ratees turnover intention will be mediated by ratees perceptions
about SWB
TL and ratee turnover intention.
As discussed earlier, Roberts (1994) supposed that followers acceptance of
the evaluation will be maximized when; the ...performance measurement process
is perceived to be accurate, the system is administered fairly, the appraisal system
is congruent or doesn't conflict with the employee's personal goals and values, and
when the appraisal process does not exceed the bounds of the "psychological
contract" between leader and the follower (p. 526). The SWB is part of the
psychological contract. The ratee will perceive an evaluation to be more
effective when the perceptions about the evaluation are not in conflict with
negative feelings about the work base. Ronen and Mikulincer, (2012) discuss
three fundamental psychological needs that must be met in order for an individual
to feel a sense of a SWB. These needs are, the need for comfort and assistance
(need for relatedness), the need to feel encouraged to pursue personal goals (need
for competence), and the need to not have personal initiatives and activities
interfered with (need for autonomy).
The ratee who perceives higher levels of SWB is more open to ideas by
virtue of being more secure to pursue ideas. This openness should translate to a
willingness to listen and learn. The emotional feeling of comfort with ones own
environment should positively impact perceptions about the PE. The ratee who
47
has a perception of a SWB will see the rater as more available and the increased
perception of availability will contribute to positive perceptions regarding the PE.
The ratee who is more secure within the workbase is more likely to be receptive.
This receptivity to rater input is critical to the rate being able to perceive the PE to
be effective. The need for competence is met when the ratee believes his or her
actions will bring about desired outcomes, this will be confirmed during an
effective PE process. Positive feedback provided during the PE will reinforce the
feeling of competence.
Kaymaz (2011) found that effective use of PE reduces performance
ambiguity and subsequently has a positive effect on motivation. The perception of
a SWB should also contribute to reduction of ambiguity and the building of
motivation (Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012). This research posits that more positive
perceptions of a SWB should have positive effect on perceptions about PE
effectiveness. H9 posits that when the ratees needs are being met within the work
base (the need for comfort and assistance (relatedness), the need to feel
encouraged to pursue personal goals (competence), and the need to not have
personal initiatives and activities interfered with (autonomy) it is also more likely
that the ratee will also have more positive perceptions about the effectiveness of
the PE
H9 There is a positive relationship between ratee perceptions of a SWB and
ratee perceptions about PE effectiveness
48
Table 2.1 (Hypotheses)

Hypothesis
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
Statement
There is a positive relationship between rater TL and ratee perceptions about PE effectiveness
Ratee perceptions of PE effectiveness will mediate the relationship between rater transformational
leadership and and ratees feelings about unit cohesion.
Ratee perceptions of PE effectiveness will mediate the relationship between rater TL and and
ratees job satisfaction.
Ratee perceptions of PE effectiveness will mediate the relationship between rater TL and and
ratees turnover intention.
There is a positive relationship between rater TL and ratee perceptions about SWB.
Ratee perceptions of SWB will mediate the relationship between rater TL and ratees perceptions
about unit cohesion
Ratee perceptions of SWB will mediate the relationship between rater TL and ratees perceptions
about job satisfaction.
Ratee perceptions of SWB will mediate the relationship between rater TL and ratee turnover
intention.
There is a positive relationship between ratee perceptions of SWB and ratee perceptions about PE
effectiveness
49
Control variables.
The survey will include the following control variables: I will gather
organizationally reported data on the overall positivity or negativity of the
individual participants last performance evaluation to control for ratee bias. In
addition, we will gather data on subordinate attachment styles.
Past research has shown individuals identified as attachment avoidant tend
to present negative descriptions of others, show negative expectations about their
behaviors, and attribute their negative behaviors to other causes (Ronen &
Mikulincer, 2009). Additionally, anxiously attached individuals are highly
sensitive to signals of social disapproval, criticism, or rejection, (Ronen &
Baldwin, 2010) . Further, anxiously attached people will tend to refrain from
pursuing autonomous goals such as those that are fostered by a transformational
leader and developed during effective PE (Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012).
Secure individuals report higher levels of job satisfaction, less
interpersonal problems inside or outside of the workplace, higher work-related
self-efficacy, and more trust in peers and supervisors (Hazan & Shaver, 1990;
Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012). Since this research is designed to study the
relationship between individual perceptions (PE effectiveness, SWB, rater
leadership) and work outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intention and cohesion)
and past research indicates that subordinates attachment styles are associated
with their perceptions of supervisors leadership styles (Popper, Mayseless, &
Castelnovo, 2000), as well as with perceptions of work attributes and outcomes it
is prudent to control for attachment styles when assessing the relationships
50
between SWB and leaders leadership styles and between SWB and perceived PE
Effectiveness and work outcomes.
Demographic Control Variables - Because education, experience (tenure),
the level of the leader and the number of individuals the leader is required to
evaluate may be related to how effective the evaluation is (and by inference how
effective the follower perceives the evaluation to be) and the effectiveness of the
evaluation is not a measurable construct these variables omission could
potentially bias the regression coefficients. I will therefore include these variables
as controls. In addition, one might conjecture that variations may be influenced
or explained by the difference in organizational norms and standards. Therefore, I
will control for organizational type in the analyses.
Table 2.2 (Demographic Variables)
Demographic Data
1
Type of Organization
Age (In Years)
Tenure (Years of Service)
Number of Combat Deployments
Education Level
Rank
Duty Position
Number of Individuals you rate
51
Purpose and Contribution

The stated purpose of this research is to understand the antecedents and
consequences of followers perceptions about PE effectiveness. I have found no
specific research that addresses this relationship directly. This study expands
research into employee reactions to PE by developing a new measure of perceived
PE effectiveness. Past PE research has focused on employee satisfaction,
perceptions of fairness and perceived use of performance evaluation. According
to the taxonomy developed by Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan, (2007) this research
contributes to theory testing. This research follows a hypothetic deductive model
using established theory (TL, SWB) to formulate specific hypotheses and
contribute to theory by testing these hypotheses with observations.
This proposed research will seek to contribute by:
Examining the influence TL has on PE effectiveness and SWB theory
testing. This research tests and advances TL theory (testing TL effect on PE
effectiveness and SWB)
Exploring the concept of SWB as it applies to PE effectiveness theory testing.
This research advances SWB into new direction (testing SWB effect on PE
effectiveness)
Opening a new research stream that will examine the direct and mediating effects
SWB and perceptions about PE effectiveness have on specific work outcomes
(unit cohesion, turnover intentions, and job satisfaction).
Additionally, this research will expand the body of knowledge by
continuing the work of Bernard Bass (multiple published work with Army
52
Research Institute), Sean Hannah (COL (R) US Army, United States Military
Academy Department of Behavioral Science and Leadership) and Bruce Avolio
(served as co-principal investigator in projects sponsored by the U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences) and others as it pertains
to leadership and leader actions within the military context. Also, as I have not
found any application of research into effectiveness of employee evaluations in a
military context, this will expand the study of employee reactions to evaluations
into the military context.
53
Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Research Design
Leadership is about exerting influence (Bass, 1985; Yukl & Van Fleet,
2006). The process by which a leader exerts influence is inherently complex and
multifaceted therefore the future of leadership research must include research
that is focused on determining the mechanisms that link leadership actions to
outcomes (Avolio et al., 2009). Stentz, Plano Clark, and Matkin (2012) point out
that using multiple research approaches will lead to better understanding of this
complex relationship. Mixed methods designs are used for collecting, analyzing,
and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of
studies to both explain and explore specific research questions (Stentz et. al.,
2012, p. 1173).
A review of the literature indicated that a mixed methods design would
provide the most complete analysis (Harrison, 2013). The quantitative design was
a cross-sectional field study using explanatory correlational research design with
an extended period of data collection (8 Months) (Creswell, 2005). Additionally,
the design allows for the testing of established theory and for further theory
development (as outlined in Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007) in so much as this
research moves the study of employee voice ( reactions to evaluations) from those
surrounding utility, satisfaction, acceptance and fairness (Cawley et al., 1998) to
that of perceived effectiveness.
This research was conducted in four stages. Stage I was exploratory in
nature and included qualitative data collection expressly for the purposes of
54
deductive scale development, refining the research topic, research questions and
development of the theoretical definition of the PE construct. The endstate of
stage I established content validity formulating the PE effectiveness scale and
framed the overall research. During this stage (in conjunction with a thorough
literature review) data was collected through expert interviews from experts (n=8)
ranging from experienced direct supervisors to former United States Army
general officers and senior executives. Secondly, during stage I a pilot study
(using the PE scale created during stage I) was conducted. The pilot study was a
web based cross sectional data collection (n=97).
Stage II, gathered data to explore the nomological network of the PE scale
in order to provide evidence that this scale has construct validity (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955). This study was a web based cross sectional data collection (n=154)
to examine the predictive, concurrent and discriminant validity of the PE
effectiveness scale.
Stage III, was a quantitative data collection and analysis conducted on-site
with the research population used for hypothesis testing (n=348). Stage IV was
continuation of the quantitative data collection with the survey population through
web based data collection (n=193). Due to the operational tempo of the survey
population and the cycle of performance evaluations (Annual evaluation) it was
necessary to collect the data over a long period of time. This stage continued for 8
months. This allowed the researcher to maximize the number of individuals who
had been evaluated in the current period as well as reduce the impact of individual
55
availability to participate in the survey. The end state of stage IV resulted in a

total survey sample of 541.
Population Description
The theoretical population generalized to is the US Army NonCommissioned Officer (NCO) and Officer in the grade of Sergeant (SGT) to
Lieutenant Colonel (LTC). Research used a purposeful sample taken from leaders
within the US Army to generalize to this theoretical population collecting data
from a sample of US Army Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) in the grade of
SGT to Command Sergeant Major (CSM) E9 and Officers in the grade on
Second Lieutenant 01 (2LT) to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) 05.
Sample population and sampling frame
The US Army Brigade (BCT) has between 3,000 and 5,000 soldiers. The
Brigade Commander commands the tactical operations of two to six organic or
attached combat battalions. Each battalion consists of 300 to 1,000 Soldiers
within four to six companies plus attachments and staff. Each Company consists
of 100-150 Soldiers within 3-5 platoons. Each platoon consists of 20-30 Soldiers
within 3-4 squads. Each squad consists of 9-12 Soldiers within 2 or more teams.
One company has approximately 47 NCOs and Officers. Each NCO and Officer
has an immediate supervisor that is required to conduct an employee performance
evaluation (Non Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report or Officer Evaluation
Report)
The sampling frame is the 1st BDE 82 Airborne Division, Ft Bragg NC.
This Brigade size element (29 companies) provides a potential study population in
56
excess of 1300 leaders. The participants were recruited through the brigades
chain of command. For the onsite data collection, the brigade commander and his
staff communicated to subordinate commanders the time and place where the
survey was to be issued and specific timeline was published. This timeline
established specific groupings (by rank and duty position). Specific instructions
were given that groups cannot include both ratees and raters from the same
organization. Individuals who showed up were afforded the opportunity to leave
should they not wish to participate. Individuals who wished to participate
reported, received a briefing, signed the informed consent document and
completed the survey. For the web based data collection a link to the online
version of the survey was sent to the brigades operation officer who distributed
the link through the brigades chain of command.
Since the research is using structural equation modeling for final data
analysis and sample size is critical to reducing error, the Mitchell rule of thumb
(sample size of 10 to 20 times the number of variables, (Garson, 2008) was
applied. The final model contained 10 variables (Global TL, 2 dimensions of
perceived PE effectiveness, 3 dimensions of perceptions about the SWB, 2
dimensions of unit cohesion, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions) setting the
minimum sample size at 200. This is the minimum number of cases required to
ensure the sample is above the minimum number required for a power level of
.80. The actual number of responses received was well beyond the 200 case
minimum at 541 cases (348 from onsite data collection and 198 from web based
collection). After cleaning the data to remove records that were not complete or
57
those that contained excessive missing data, of the 541 participants 524 (96%)
completed the entire survey. This provided a final sample of 524 usable cases,
which was well above the required 200 cases.
58
Figure 3.1 (Study Population)
KeyLeader&StaffSurvey
BDECDR,XOandCSM
BattalionCDRs,XOsandCSMs
BDEandBNprimarystaffofficersandkey
SNCOs(S1,S2,S3,S4,S6)
Company/battery/troopCDRs,XOsand1SGs
SmallUnitLeader&SoldierSurvey
AllPLsandPSGs
AllSquadLeaders
BDE CDR = Brigade Commander

CO=Company Commander
Co XO= Company Executive Officer
BDE XO = Brigade Executive
Officer SOs=Staff Officers
BDE CSM= Brigade Command Sergeant Major
SNCOs= Staff Non Commissioned Officers
BN CDR = Battalion Commander BN CSM= Battalion Command Sergeant
Major BN XO = Battalion Executive Officer
S1= Administration
S2=Intelligence S3=Operations S4=Logistics
S6=Communications1SG=Company First Sergeant PL=Platoon Leader PSG=Platoon Sergeant SL=Squad Leader
59
Data Collection Tools

Creswell, (2005), recommends use of a survey instrument comprised of
items from scales that have been previously tested and published. The use of
established scales serves to improve the validity and reliability of findings due to
the scales being generally accepted and tested through prior research. All
measurement scales used in this research with the exception of the PE
effectiveness scale are generally accepted and Cronbachs alpha scores computed
in prior research are provided in this section. All of the scales used in this research
demonstrated acceptable level of reliability as shown by the Cronbachs alpha
scores presented in chapter 4.
Perceived Effectiveness Scale- Scale measuring perceptions of PE
effectiveness was developed and validated using the methodology outlined by
past research (Churchill, 1979; Hinkin, 1995). A thorough literature review
revealed that no scale to measure employee perceptions about PE effectiveness
existed. Given the significance of this construct for the prediction of important
work outcomes and its distinctive content, as well as previous calls for the
development of a measure that would capture perceptions about PE effectiveness
(Cawley et al., 1998; Longenecker & Fink, 1997) the perceptions about PE
effectiveness was developed prior to the study. An initial set of items (questions)
that capture the content of perceptions of PE effectiveness was developed. This
process of deductive scale development was based on the detailed literature
review and a thorough understanding of the theoretical basis of the construct
being studied (Hinkin, 1995). During the process of item generation the focus was
60
on content validity. That is, items had to assess the specific interest (perceived
effectiveness of PE) and not extraneous constructs.
Questions were developed and a pilot was conducted using this scale (PE
Effectiveness Items 1-26). Factor analysis was used to examine the stability of
the structure (and confirm the expected two factor solution) and to report on the
internal consistency of the scale. Questions 1-4 gathered demographic data.
Questions 5-16 measured individual followers perceptions of effectiveness related
to the evaluation system. Individuals were asked to rate a series of questions on a
5 point Likert scale with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree.
Example questions include: The Evaluation System is effective at motivating
employees and The Evaluation System is effective at establishing goals for
performance. In addition, questions 17-26 measure individual followers
perceptions of effectiveness regarding their last evaluation. Individuals are asked
to rate a series of questions on a 5 point likert scale with 1 being strongly disagree
and 5 being strongly agree. Example questions include: My last evaluation
provided accurate feedback on my past performance and My last evaluation
provided me with the tools to improve my performance.
Pilot study #1
The population consisted of working adults with government, US military
and civilian occupations. Link to survey was emailed to professional and personal
contacts on LinkedIn and Facebook resulting in 97 acceptable responses. 84.5
percent of the respondents have been evaluated in their position. 56.7 percent did
not complete a self-evaluation as part of the performance evaluation process. 64.9
61
percent did sit down and discuss the evaluation face to face. Also, 44.3 percent
describe the professional development process in their organization as an ongoing
development process with multiple meaningful engagements, 21.6 percent say the
professional development process in their organization is top down with one way
communication and 34 percent say there is no formal process followed.
Factor Analysis- a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of 22 of the 26
Likert scale questions from the perceived effectiveness survey was conducted on
data gathered from 97 participants. An examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the sample was factorable
(KMO=.93 , .6 is a suggested minimum). Using SPSS (Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization rotation method) loadings less than 0.30 were excluded and the
analysis yielded the expected two factor solution with a simple structure (factor
loadings =>.30). Additionally, Cronbachs coefficient alpha was used to test for
internal consistency. The alpha coefficient for the 22 items is 0.96, suggesting that
the items have relatively high internal consistency.
62

Item
The professional development process in my organization is
effective
Apart from the annual evaluation, I receive effective professional
development
The Evaluation System is effective at weeding out poor
performers
The Evaluation System is effective at motivating employees
The Evaluation System is effective at increasing productivity
The Evaluation System is effective tool for retaining the best
employees
The Evaluation System is effective at providing employees
opportunity for growth
The Evaluation System is effective at establishing goals for
performance
The Evaluation System is effective at improving the relationship
between rater and ratee
The Evaluation System is effectively used as a basis for promotion
The Evaluation System is effective at reinforcing organizational
standards
Overall the system is effective
My last evaluation provided accurate feedback on my past
performance
My last evaluation provided effective feedback on my past
performance
My last evaluation was based on my raters direct observation of my
performance
My last evaluation was based on performance objectives
established by my rater and me
My last evaluation provided me an opportunity to voice my
concerns
My last evaluation provided me with the tools to improve my
performance
My last evaluation was based on my performance not on my
personality
My last evaluation effectively identified how I can contribute to the
organization in the future
My last evaluation established an effective roadmap for my
improvement
Overall my last evaluation was effective
63
Component
PEsys PEev
.668
.704
.749
.820
.886
.859
.863
.782
.735
.715
.841
.878
.796
.808
.744
.759
.763
.804
.718
.855
.831
.846
Pilot study #2
Pilot Study # 2 gathered data to explore the nomological network of the
scale in order to provide evidence that this scale has construct validity (Cronbach
& Meehl, 1955). Two items were removed from the analysis of the scale (The
professional development process in my organization is effective and Apart
from the annual evaluation, I receive effective professional development). These
items measure perceptions about the overall professional development process
verses the PE process.
The population consisted of working adults within the Clarksville,
Tennessee City Government, US military and civilian occupations. Link to survey
was emailed to professional and personal contacts on LinkedIn as well as to
leadership within the City of Clarksville Parks Department. The resulting sample
included in 149 acceptable responses. 83% of the respondents have been
evaluated in their position. 69% reported that they did sit down and discuss the
evaluation face to face with their rater, 56.4% describe the professional
development process in their organization as an ongoing development process
with multiple meaningful engagements, 17% reported the professional
development process in their organization as top down with one way
communication and 27% reported there is no formal process followed.
Another factor analysis (again using PCA) of the 20 Likert scale questions
from the perceived effectiveness survey was conducted on data gathered from 149
participants. An examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy suggested that the sample was factorable (KMO=.935, .6 is a suggested
64
minimum). Using SPSS (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method)

loadings less than 0.30 were excluded and the analysis confirmed the expected
two factor solution (Perceptions about the PE System [PEsys] and Perceptions
about the last evaluation [PEev) with a simple structure (factor loadings =>.30).
Additionally, the alpha coefficient for the 20 items is =0.964, (Perceptions about
the system sub scale =.954 and perceptions about the last evaluation sub scale
=.945) suggesting that the items have relatively high internal consistency.
65

Item
The Evaluation System is effective at weeding out poor
performers
The Evaluation System is effective at motivating
employees
The Evaluation System is effective at increasing
productivity
The Evaluation System is effective tool for retaining the
best employees
The Evaluation System is effective at providing employees
opportunity for growth
The Evaluation System is effective at establishing goals for
performance
The Evaluation System is effective at improving the
relationship between rater and ratee
The Evaluation System is effectively used as a basis for
promotion
The Evaluation System is effective at reinforcing
organizational standards
My last evaluation provided accurate feedback on my past
performance
My last evaluation provided effective feedback on my past
performance
My last evaluation was based on my raters direct observation
of my performance
My last evaluation was based on performance objectives
established by my rater and me
My last evaluation provided me an opportunity to voice my
concerns
My last evaluation provided me with the tools to improve my
performance
My last evaluation was based on my performance not on my
personality
My last evaluation effectively identified how I can contribute
to the organization in the future
My last evaluation established an effective roadmap for my
improvement
66
Component
PEsys PEev
.791
.785
.793
.794
.833
.792
.693
.762
.730
.809
.846
.825
.760
.722
.676
.708
.734
.724
.687
.782
Nomological network of the PE Scale

Correlations between theoretically similar measures should be "high"
while correlations between theoretically dissimilar measures should be "low"
(Trochim, 2006). In an attempt to show a correspondence between similar
constructs (convergent validity) pilot study#2 tested a measure of a similar
constructs (perceptions of performance appraisal satisfaction). Theoretically this
construct should be related to perceptions of effectiveness. The variables PA
Satisfaction (PAS) and PE Effectiveness are strongly correlated, r (147) = .83, p<
.01. (PAS to PE System, r(147) = .78, p< .001, PAS to perceptions about the last
evaluation r(147) = .76,p< .01) demonstrating convergent validity. To test if the
PE scale is not well correlated with measures of other constructs to which it
should not be related (discriminant validity) pilot #2 also included measures
perceived to be dissimilar (Turnover Intentions (TI), and Perceptions about
SWB). The PE effectiveness variable was moderately correlated to the TI, r (147)
= .48, p < .01,(TI to PE System, r(147) = .43, p < .001, TI to perceptions about
the last evaluation r(147) = .45, p < .01). The PE effectiveness variable was also
moderately correlated to the sub scales of SWB, Availability to PE
System, r(147) = .40, p < .001, Availability to perceptions about the last
evaluation r(147) = .41, p < .01, Autonomy to PE System, r(147) = .45, p < .001,
Autonomy to perceptions about the last evaluation r(147) = .47, p < .01,
Encouragement to PE System, r(147) = .45, p < .001, Encouragement to
perceptions about the last evaluation r(147) = .45, p < .01).
Transformational Leadership- Due to the expected size of the survey
population (n > 500) and the relatively large number of leaders (n > 300) and to
67
reduce the number of items in the total survey, transformational leadership was
measured using a short measure of TL, the Global Transformational Leadership
scale (GTL) (Carless, Wearing & Mann, 2000). This scale was developed then
validated using a sample of business leaders in Australia (n=1440) Exploratory
and confirmatory analysis showed high convergent validity with the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995) with correlations
ranging from .71 to .87. The alpha coefficient (.93) supports the GTL as reliable
measure of TL. The scale includes seven items designed to measure a global
measure of TL (Carless et al., 2000). The items measure seven behaviors; (1)
communicates a vision, (2) develops staff, (3) provides support, (4) empowers
staff, (5) is innovative, (6) leads by example, and (7) is charismatic. (Carless, et
al., 2000; p.390). The alpha coefficient for the 7 item scale computed for Pilot #2
(n=149) is =0.961, suggesting that the items have relatively high internal
consistency. Reliability test results computed using the final sample are reported
in the validity and reliability Analyses section of Chapter 4.
Unit cohesion. Unit cohesion was measured using a modified version of
the Platoon Unit cohesion Index (PCI) as reported in Siebold and Kelly (1988).
This measure was developed to be a shortened tool developed using the
psychometrically best items from the Combat Platoon Cohesion Questionnaire
(Siebold & Kelly, 1988). The long-form scales correlate with the short-form
scales at .8 (Siebold & Kelly, 1988). Unit cohesion is conceptualized in terms of
horizontal, vertical, and organizational bonding. The PCI consists of 20 items that
form 3 horizontal, 12 vertical, and 5 organizational bonding scales. I modified the
68
language in the survey to measure unit cohesion from the perspective of the SSG
and above. A sample item from the PCI includes First-termers in this platoon
uphold and support Army values and Leaders in this platoon uphold and support
Army Values. For example, Soldiers in my unit uphold and support Army
values and Leaders in my unit uphold and support Army Values. Other scales
using modified versions of this scale such as 20 item Unit Cohesion Index,
developed by (Mangelsdorff, Stokes, & Jacobs, 1990) report high reliability
coefficients (.94). Yagil (1995) reported reliability coefficients of .75 to .89 for
the sub scales of the 20 item PCI. Reliability test results computed using the final
sample are reported in the validity and reliability Analyses section of Chapter 4.
Job Satisfaction job satisfaction was measured using Brayfield and
Rothe (1951) 5 item job satisfaction scale. The calculated alpha coefficient for the
5 item scale computed for Pilot #2 (n=149) is =0.873, suggesting that the items
have relatively high internal consistency. Reliability test results computed using
the final sample are reported in the validity and reliability Analyses section of
Chapter 4.
Turn over intention turnover intention was measured using a three-item
measure developed by Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) Konovsky and
Cropanzano (1991). Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) report an alpha value of
.84 for this scale. Items are 'I intend to look for a job outside of the Army within
the next year," 'I intend to remain in the Army indefinitely'(reverse-scored), and 'I
often think about quitting the Army.' The calculated alpha coefficient for the
unmodified 3 item scale computed for Pilot #2 (n=149) is =0.844, suggesting
69
that the items have relatively high internal consistency. Reliability test results
computed using the final sample are reported in the Validity and Reliability
Analyses section of Chapter 4.
Perceptions of Secure work base will be measured with the Secure Work
base scale from Ronen & Lane (NP). This scale conceptualizes SWB in terms of
availability, (example question is I do not generally count on others at work to be
available to help out if I run into trouble when pursuing personal goals (reverse
coded)), reduced intrusiveness, (example question At work, when I am working
on something difficult or challenging, others sometimes try to take over and do it
for me) and encouragement, (example question. At work, others are praising me
when I do a good job. Reliability test results computed using the final sample are
reported in the validity and reliability Analyses section of Chapter 4.
Attachment Style was measured using the Experience of Relationships Scale (
ERS; Richards & Schat, 2011). The ERS is an adapted version of Brennan et al.s
(1998) measure. References to romantic partners in the items are replaced with
other people or others. The scale consists of 36-items measuring two
dimensions of attachment: anxiety (18 items) and avoidance (18 items). Sample
items are I worry a fair amount about losing my connections with others
(anxiety) and I dont feel comfortable opening up to other people (avoidance).
Responses were provided on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. Reliability test results computed using the final sample are
reported in the Validity and Reliability Analyses section of Chapter 4.
70
Data Collection
Permission to conduct this research was be secured from US Army Human
Research Protections Office,theFort BraggHuman Research Protections Office
and the TUI University Institutional Review Board prior to commencement of
data collection. A letter of introduction and request to participate in the research
study was be made to the 1st Brigade Combat Team. The brigade commander
agreed to participate and assigned the brigade operations officer as organization
point of contact to facilitate participant recruitment. The method of data collection
was self-report questionnaire. Data was collected using the scales discussed
above using field study approach (Bass, et., al., 2003).
Contact was established with the organizations point of contact and a time
was established for the first data collection. The initial data collection was
conducted on site at Ft Bragg over a three day period. The chain of command
distributed a flyer (see FigX) that invited participation and established a timeline
where each group reported to designate classroom received an in brief, signed the
Informed Consent Document, completed the survey and departed. A total 348
individuals participated in the onsite data collection. In order to maximize
participation an online version of the survey was created using GoogleDocs. A
web link to the survey was sent to the organizations point of contact for
distribution through the chain of command. The web based data collection yielded
an additional 193 participants.
71
Figure 3.2 (Sample recruiting flyer)
72
Statistical Analysis
Prior to conducting data analysis the responses were checked for accuracy
and completeness. Since the sample was large enough (n=541) and the amount of
missing data was minimal the listwise deletion (Complete Case Analysis) method
was used. The resulting usable sample was n=524. The data analysis addressed
three questions relating to the hypothesized relationship between the variables: (1)
what is the probability that the relationship exists? (2) how strong is the
relationship? and (3) How strong and in what direction do the hypothesized
mediating variables affect the relationship(s)? Data was analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Graduate Pack/ Amos Graphics
18.0 and 21.0 for Windows. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques
were used to estimate the fit of the model that has been hypothesized in Figure 3.
SEM allows for the testing of overall model fit, and the interrelationships between
the variables (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). SPSS/AMOS-21 (SEM) was used
as an extension of the regression model to test the fit of the correlation matrix
against the models. The path analysis runs a regression for each variable in the
model as a dependent on others which the model assumes have a specific
relationship. The regression weights predicted by the model are then compared
with the observed correlation matrix for the variables, and a goodness of-fit
statistic calculated. The best-fitting of two or more models is then selected as best
model for advancement of theory. The model presented included several
mediators. SEM is more efficient at model specification and proving estimation
options and is overall a less problematic method of testing mediation (Preacher &
Hayes, 2008). The test for mediation follows the two-step method recommended
73
by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Step one examines the model of the variables
by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This process estimates the loadings
of the manifest indicators on their respective latent variables (Ronen &
Mikulincer, 2012). The structural model is tested in the second step. Additionally,
the research used the Preacher and Hayes (2008) bootstrapping method for testing
multiple mediation models with manifest variables using INDIRECT procedure
with SPSS v21.
Participant Safety and Confidentiality
There were no physical risks associated with this study. The risks to
subjects are of a psychological and social nature. These risks are just as real to the
subjects who experience them. It is possible that negative emotions may be
drawn out through participation in this study as a result of the nature of the
subject (PE). These emotions could lead to both short and longterm emotional
suffering. In addition, breaches of confidentiality (about the effectiveness of the
leader performing the PE, followers perceptions about the effectiveness of the
PE, followers turnover intention and job satisfaction) could be stigmatizing,
place a subject at risk of damage to a subjects reputation and or standing in the
organization. Lastly, the possibility of retribution is a concern should the leader
become aware of the followers perceptions. These risks were minimized with
careful planning. For example, because strong emotions could possibly be
released as a result of participation, I will conduct a separate pre-brief to leaders
and followers addressing the possible negative impacts and provide coping
strategies as well as ensure all risks are clearly stated in the application and are
74
part of the consent process. Participation in this research was voluntary, and with
the permission of the command. Confidentiality was promised to the participants
and carefully kept. Only authorized project personnel have access to data. All
participants were fully informed as to the purpose of the research and assured that
all data collected on them will be completely confidential.
75
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Presentation of Results

This chapter provides an overview of the statistical analysis described in
the previous chapter. Included is this chapter is a description of the demographics
and presentation of descriptive statistics of the sample. Also, factor analysis and
reliability testing of the sample data is included to ensure consistency with
previous pilot studies. Finally, the statistical hypothesis testing process is
described.
Characteristics of the sample
After analyzing and cleaning the data a final sample of 524 usable cases
remained. The survey population consisted of 59% combat arms, 21% combat
service support and 20% combat support. This sample represents a highly
experienced and highly educated population with the youngest individual being
22 years old and the oldest being 47 (x = 32). The time the service ranged from
one year to 28 years, (x =10) this indicates that the majority of the respondents are
at or beyond the midpoint of a 20 year career. Of the 524 respondents 53% had at
least a two-year college degree. 34% reported having at least some college. 52%
of the survey population were noncommissioned officers and 48% were
commissioned officers. The sample was representative of all ranks from Sergeant
E5 to Colonel O6 and every leadership position within the brigade from team
leader to brigade commander. This is important as it provides a sample that is
representative of all ranks and duty positions. 75.1% of the participants reported
being in a leadership position that requires them to rate a subordinate, of that 43%
rate 3 or more.
76
Table 4.1 (Population Demographics)

Selected Population Demographics
Percent of population
(n=524)
Education
High School
13.4
Some College
34.2
Associates Degree
10.1
Baccalaureate Degree
33.0
Masters Degree
8.8
Juris Doctor (J.D.)
.2
Medical Doctor (M.D)
.4
Duty Position
Squad Leader
22.9
Section Leader
8.8
Platoon Sergeant
13.0
Platoon Leader
10.3
Company Commander
6.9
Battalion Commander
2.7
Staff Officer
12.4
Staff NCO
10.1
Battalion XO
1.1
77
Selected Population Demographics

Team Leader
Percent of population
(n=524)
.4
Command Sergeant Major
1.7
First Sergeant
4.8
Company XO
4.6
Brigade Commander
.2
Brigade XO
.2
Individuals Responsible for Rating

Do not Rate anyone
24.8
Rate at Least One
18.3
Rate two
13.5
Rate three or more
43.3
Population Average
Age
31.59
Tenure
10.06
78
Descriptive statistics about the Performance Management System

In order to get a better understanding about the general perceptions
regarding the performance management processes within the organization, several
descriptive questions were asked. Of the 524 participants 49.2% had completed a
self-evaluation and 50.8% had not. 54.4% reported conducting a face-to-face sit
down with their supervisor and 45.6% had not. Of the 524 participants 83.4% had
an above standard promoted ahead of peers rating. When asked to describe the
overall performance development process within the organization 51% reported
as being ongoing and developmental in nature, 35.9% reported that there is no
formal process followed and 13.2% reported as top down with only one way
communication. When asked whether they agree that the professional
development process in the organization is effective 33.8% indicated they neither
agree nor disagree, 30.9% agreed, 20.4% disagreed. Only 8.2% strongly disagreed
with 6.7% strongly agreeing that the professional development system is effective
(x =3.07, =1.05). When asked whether or not they agreed that they received
effective professional development outside of the annual evaluation 31.7%
agreed, 27.9% neither agreed nor disagreed, 19.5% disagreed, 11.1% strongly
disagreed and 9.9% strongly agreed (x =3.10,=1.16).
ANOVAs
A series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses were
conducted to explore any significant differences between the means of the overall
performance management variables (The professional development process in
my organization is effective and Apart from the annual evaluation, I receive
79
effective professional development). First, a one-way ANOVA was used to

explore individual perceptions about the effectiveness of the professional
development system within the organization with 6 different groupings; (1) how
the individual described the professional development system, (2) the type of
military occupational specialty they have, (3) their duty position, (4) if they
completed a self-evaluation, (5) if the individual had a face to face sit down with
the rater, and (6) the results of the last evaluation (above, below or met standards)
as reported . Perceptions varied significantly across the 4 of the 6 groupings.
There is significant variance between groups when grouped by how the individual
described the performance management system, (F(2, 521)) = 120.418, p <.001.), by
duty position (F(2, 521)) = 2.84, p <.001.), whether or not an actual face to face sit
down occurred with the rater (F(2, 521) = 40.775, p <.001), and the characteristic of
the last evaluation (F(2, 521) = 8.144, p <.001). Next, one-way ANOVA was used to
explore individual perceptions about the effectiveness of the professional
development system outside the annual evaluation using the same 6 groupings.
the same 4 groupings showed significant variance between groups; how the
individual described the performance management system, (F(2, 521) = 115.04, p
<.001.), by duty position (F(2, 521) = 3.52, p <.001.), whether or not an actual face
to face sit down occurred with the rater F(2, 521) = 52.94, p <.001), and the
characteristic of the last evaluation F(2, 521) = 8.30, p <.001).
80
Table 4.2 (Descriptive statistics about the Performance Management System)

Profession Development in Organization is effective
Percent
Strongly Disagree
8.2
Disagree
20.4
Neither agree nor disagree
33.8
Agree
30.9
Strongly Agree
6.7
Profession Development other than the Annual Evaluation occurs

Percent
Strongly Disagree
11.1
Disagree
19.5
Neither agree nor disagree
27.9
Agree
31.7
Strongly Agree
9.9
81
Validity and Reliability Analyses

Factor analyses and reliability tests were conducted for each scale using
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Graduate Pack/ Amos Graphics
18.0 for Windows. These tests were compared with pilot number 2 results to
ensure validity and reliability of the scales. Table 4.1 depicts summary descriptive
statistics for each for scale. Scales ranged from three to thirty-six items.
Cronbachs alpha coefficients for all scales were >.70. The mean for each scale
ranged from 9.1 to 40.5, with standard deviations ranging from 1.3 to 12.3.
Table 4.3 (Final Scale summary descriptive statistics)
Descriptive Statistics
N
N
x
SCALE
Items Cases
SD
PE Effectiveness Scale
PESystem
10
524 0.93 29.19 8.40
PE Eval
10
524 0.95 33.91 9.81
Unit Cohesion Scale
OrgCoh
10
524 0.85 35.60 6.34
VerticalCoh
4
524 0.86 15.52 2.64
HorizontalCoh
6
524 0.89 22.56 3.98
Secure WorkBase Scale
524 0.75 10.12 2.32
Reduced Intrusiveness(Autonomy)
3
524
Availability
0.79 9.10 1.29
3
524 0.89 13.53 3.38
Encouragement
4
7
524 0.95 25.30 6.62
Global Transformational Leadership
Adult Attachment Style
Anxious
18
524 0.93 40.26 12.32
Avoidant
18
524 0.86 40.51 12.01
5
524 0.86 16.22 4.92
Job Satisfaction Scale
3
524 0.76 10.12 3.36
Turnover Intention Scale
82
Perceived Effectiveness Scale - based on the literature review and the

exploratory analysis conducted in the pilot studies the construct perceptions about
PE effectiveness is presented as a function of 2 factors, perceptions about the
evaluation system and perceptions about the actual evaluation. Using the data
from the research population (n= 524) exploratory factor analysis (again using
PCA) of the 20 Likert scale questions from the PE survey was conducted. An
examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested
that the sample was factorable (KMO=.951, .6 is a suggested minimum).
Bartletts test of sphericity was significant (2 = 8617.296, df = 190, p .001).
Using SPSS (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method) loadings less
than 0.30 were excluded and the analysis again confirmed the expected two factor
solution. 66.35% of the variance is explained by the two factors (PESys and
PEev) with a simple structure (factor loadings =>.30). Additionally, the alpha
coefficients for the perception about the system sub scale (PEsys, =.931) and
perceptions about the last evaluation sub scale (PEev =.953) are >.70 confirming
that the items have relatively high internal consistency. Since this scale was
developed for this dissertation and has not been used in research a confirmatory
factor analysis was conducted on the PE Sale using AMOS 21 for windows. The
overall model fit appears good. The 2 test yields a value of 182.935 which,
evaluated with 103 degrees of freedom, has a corresponding p-value of less than
.001. This significant p-value can be attributed to the large sample size and does
not absolutely mean the model is not a fit. Additionally, the Root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA, .03) is <0.05 indicating a good fit, the
83
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI, .98) and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI, .98)
are >0.9 reflecting a good fit.
Table 4.4 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis PE Scale)
CFA Measurement Model PE Effectiveness Scale
Fit Index
2 Factor Model
Benchmark
182.93 (p<.001)
P value not significant
CFI
.98
>.95
NFI
.98
>.95
GFI
.96
>.95
AGFI
.98
>.95
RMSA
.03
< .06 to .08
Perceptions of Secure work base scale An exploratory factor analysis

(again using PCA) of the 14 Likert scale questions from the SWB scale was
conducted on the survey data (n=524). An examination of the Kaiser-Meyer
Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the sample was factorable
(KMO=.825, .6 is a suggested minimum). Bartletts test of sphericity was
significant (2 = 3204.161, df = 91, p .001). Using SPSS (Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization rotation method) loadings less than 0.30 were excluded and the
analysis again confirmed the expected three factor solution. 60% of the variance
is explained by the three factors (Reduced Intrusiveness/Autonomy, Availability
and Encouragement) with a simple structure (factor loadings =>.30). After
conducting analysis and to represent a clearer construct with higher reliability, 4
84
items (I do not generally count on others at work to be available to help out if I

run into trouble when pursuing personal goals, At work, others do not usually
go out of their way to make themselves available to me when I am facing a
challenging or difficult situation, At work, others give me advices or
suggestions about what to do although I did not ask them and At work, when I
am working on something difficult or challenging, others sometimes try to take
over and do it for me) were removed. The resulting in alpha coefficients for the
three sub scales (SWAu =.746, SWBAu = .785 and SWBEn = .877) are >.70
confirming that the items have relatively high internal consistency. Additionally,
a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the resulting 10 item scale. The
overall model fit appears good. The 2 test yields a value of 59.784 which,
evaluated with 27 degrees of freedom, has a corresponding p-value of less than
.001. This significant p value can again be attributed to the large sample size.
Additionally, the Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA, .05) is
<0.05 to 0.8 indicating a good fit, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI, .98) and
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI, .98) are >0.9 reflecting a good fit.
85
Table 4.5 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis SWB Scale)

CFA Measurement Model SWB Scale
Fit Index
2 Factor Model
Benchmark
59.78 (p<.001)
NFI
.98
>.95
GFI
.98
>.95
AGFI
.98
>.90
RMSA
.05
< .06 to .08
Global Transformational Leadership Scale - factor analysis (again using PCA) of

the 7 Likert scale questions from the GTL was conducted on the survey data
(n=524). An examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling
minimum). Bartletts test of sphericity was significant (2 = 3272.72, df = 21, p
.001). Using SPSS (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method) and the
analysis again confirmed the single factor solution with 75.68% of the variance
being explained by the single factor (GTL). Additionally, the alpha coefficient for
the 7 items is =0.95, (0.96 in Pilot#2) confirming that the items have relatively
high internal consistency.
Turn over intention factor analysis (again using PCA) of the 3 Likert scale
questions from the TI scale was conducted on the survey data (n=524). An
that the sample was factorable (KMO=.691, .6 is a suggested minimum). Bartletts
86
test of sphericity was significant (2 = 395.3449, df = 3, .001). Using SPSS

(Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method) and the analysis again
confirmed the single factor solution with 68% of the variance being explained by
the single factor (TI). Additionally, the alpha coefficient for the 3 items is =0.763
(.844 in Pilot#2), confirming that the items have good internal consistency.
Job Satisfaction factor analysis (again using PCA) of the 5 Likert scale
questions from the TI scale was conducted on the survey data (n=524). An
that the sample was factorable (KMO=.840, .6 is a suggested minimum). Bartletts
test of sphericity was significant (2 = 1349.331, df = 10, .001). Using SPSS
(Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method) and the analysis again
confirmed the single factor solution with 66% of the variance being explained by
the single factor (JS). Additionally, the alpha coefficient for the 3 items is =0.865
(.873 in Pilot#2), confirming that the items have good internal consistency.
Unit cohesion - Factor analysis (again using PCA) of the 20 Likert scale
questions from the perceived effectiveness survey was conducted on the survey data
(n=524). An examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling
minimum). Bartletts test of sphericity was significant (2 = 6217.419, df = 190,
.001). Using SPSS (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method) loadings
less than 0.40 were excluded and the analysis again confirmed the expected three
factor solution. 60% of the variance is explained by the three factors (2 Items
Horizontal Bonding, 8 Items Organizational Bonding, and 10 Items Vertical
87
Bonding,) with a simple structure (factor loadings =>.40). Additionally, the alpha
coefficient for the subscales (HB, = .782, OB, =.896, VB, =.899) indicates that
the items have relatively high internal consistency.
Scale Correlation Analysis
A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) was calculated to
explore the strength and significance of relationships between the variables. The
Pearson correlations matrix, shown in Table 4.6 below, displays the calculated rvalue and associated p value for each correlation. The r-value indicates the
strength of the relationship between the two intersecting variables. The
corresponding p values are interpreted as the probability of Type I error
(inappropriately rejecting the null hypothesis). A p value < .05 is the typical
standard for rejecting the null hypothesis that that there is no significant
relationship between the two variables. All correlations between the variables in
this research were significant at p < .05.
88
Table 4.6 (Variable correlations)

2
3. SWBAv
4. SWBAu
1
1
.37**
-.023
.028
1
-.050
-.020
1
.286**
5. SWBEn
-.040
-.044
.720** .290**
6. HorBon
1. AVOID
2. ANX
-.092
-.090
.516
**
**
.442**
**
**
-.062
-.069
.462
8. TurnInt
-.039
.006
.220** .123** .368** .170** .208**
9. JobSat
-.075
-.073
10. GTL
-.093
-.093
11. PEsys
-.052
-.061
12. PEev
13. Tenure
-.034
.010
.525
**
.502
**
**
.262
**
.231
10
11
.505
**
.565
**
.573
.545**
.411
**
.146
13
**
.501
**
.395
1
1
**
.575**
**
**
.589
.475
.274
1
.570**
.520** .113** .518** .572** .513** .333** .615** .552**

**
12
7. OrgBon
.297
**
.237
.473
**
**
.371
-.049
.017
.090
.103
.084 .112
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). n=524
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
89
**
.374
.013
**
.344
.131
**
**
.450
**
.198
**
.702**
**
.068
.060
.543
.141
Multicollinarity Test Results

Due to the interrelatedness of the psychological constructs
multicollinearity was a concern. At the aggregate level the large sample size
reduces the impact. Multicollinearity was tested by computing collinearity
statistics and examining tolerance and the variance inflation factor (VIF) in each
regression model. Each independent variable was regressed against the other
independent variables and collinearity statistics were computed. A common rule
of thumb is that a VIF of 10 or higher, or tolerances of .10 or less, are indicators
of reason for concern (O'Brien, 2007). All collinearity statistics were well within
the range to alleviate any concerns about multicollinearity.
Table 4.7 (Collinearity statistics)
Collinearity
Tolerance VIF
PE System
.552 1.812
Last PE
.595 1.681
SWB Availablity
.664 1.506
SWB Autonomy
.923 1.084
SWB Encouragement
.636 1.572
Model DV GTL
Collinearity
Tolerance VIF
.659 1.517
SWB Availablity
SWB Autonomy
.908 1.101
SWB Encouragement
.610 1.640
Global TL
.647 1.547
.673 1.486
PE System
Model DV PeSys
Last PE
SWB Availablity
SWB Autonomy
SWB Encouragement
Global TL
Model DV PEeV
Collinearity
Tolerance VIF
.613 1.632
SWB Encouragement
Global TL
.624 1.603
PE System
.535 1.869
Last PE
.565 1.770
SWB Availablity
.666 1.501
Model DV SWBAv
SWB Autonomy
SWB Encouragement
Global TL
PE System
Last PE
Model DV SWBAu
Model DV SWBEn
Global TL
PE System
Last PE
SWB Availablity
SWB Autonomy
90
Collinearity
Tolerance VIF
.715 1.398
.685 1.460
.914 1.094
.610 1.641
.638 1.568
Collinearity
Tolerance VIF
.917 1.090
.695 1.438
.618 1.618
.552 1.813
.565 1.771
Collinearity
Tolerance VIF
.646 1.548
.536 1.866
.570 1.756
.759 1.318
.920 1.087
Measurement Model
In preparation to conduct hypothesis testing using structural equation
modeling, an additional EFA was conducted using SPSS v 21 (Principle Axis
Factoring with Promax rotation method). This was conducted in order to obtain a
pattern matrix. The Pattern matrix was inputted into AMOS v. 21 to create the
measurement model (Fig. 4.1). Next, a confirmatory factor analyses was
conducted. A test of the initial measurement model (Fig, 4.1) resulted in two of
three acceptable fit indices, 2(1917, n = 524) = 3540.347, p = .00; NFI = .866;
CFI = .933; RMSEA = .040. The NFI was not at the acceptable level of .90. The
expected reasons for this lack of model fit where, the presence of significant
cross loading in the organizational bonding and vertical bonding scales and the
presence of several items that displayed extremely low factor loadings in the
measurement model. Using the modification indices in AMOS 21 an iterative
process was followed, testing additional modified models after removing those
that significantly cross loaded (less than .2 difference) and low regression weights
(below .65). The resulting measurement model (Fig. 4.2) included a combined
latent factor comprised of items from the organizational bonding and vertical
bonding scales into a single measure of organizational bonding. This is
theoretically sound since both vertical and organizational bonding measure a
feeling of cohesion vertically (Siebold & Kelly, 1986).
The final measurement model (Fig. 4.2) the measurement model resulted
in good fit indices, 2(1102, n= 524) = 1920.166, p = .00; NFI = .908; CFI = .958;
RMSEA = .038. Once the model was completed composite variables were created
91
using the impute variables function in AMOS v 21. The correlations between the
latent variables are presented; all loadings and correlations are statistically
significant (p < .01).
92
Figuer 4.1 (Initial Measurment Model)
93
Figure 4.2 (Measurement model after modification)
94
Hypothesis Testing
There are 6 major components to hypothesis testing. First, analyze the
direct relationship between TL and PE. Second, evaluate the mediating effect that
PE has on the relationship between TL and work outcomes (JS, TI, OrCoh).
Third, analyze the direct relationship between TL and SWB. Fourth, evaluate the
mediating effect that as the SWB has on the relationship between TL and work
outcomes (JS, TI, OrCoh). Fifth, analyze the direct relationship between SWB
and PE. Finally, evaluate the full structural model.
Initial Hypothesis testing was conducted using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) Graduate Pack 18.0 for Windows. Multiple regression
analysis was conducted to compare the direct correlations between the
independent and dependent variables. This series of regression analyses were
conducted to provide preliminary support for the hypothesized direct
relationships. In order to account for the influence of other variables (indirect)
within the relationships, each hypothesis along with the entire model was again
tested using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/AMOS) Graduate
Pack 21.0 for Windows.
95
Full Structural Model

The goodness-of-fit test statistics for the full model (Fig 4.) are displayed
below. The Chi-square and degrees or freedom (25, 72.43) is significant p<.001.
The Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA is 0.06) is between .06
and .08 indicating good fit. The lower value of the 90% confidence interval (.04)
is near zero and the upper value (.07) less than .08. Additionally, the p of Close
Fit (PCLOSE .138) is greater than .05 indicating close fit. The Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI, .98), Normed Fit Index (NFI .97), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
(AGFI .93), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI .98) are larger than 0.9 reflecting a
good fit. The majority of the parameter estimates are significant p<.001. With the
exception of those shown in table 4.9 the standardized regression estimates are
also significant.
Table 4.8 (Final FULL SEM Model Fit Indices)
Full structural Model
Fit Index
2
Full Model w/Controls

59.78 (p<.001)
Benchmark
CFI
.98
>.95
GFI
.98
>.95
AGFI
.98
>.95
NFI
.98
>.95
RMSA
.05
< .06 to .08
96
The full structural model tested a total of 47 paths (see figure 4. ). Of the
paths analyzed 29 indicated significant effects (had a significant path coefficient).
When evaluating the total effects (direct effects and indirect effects) Eleven paths
indicated a large significant total effect (>.25), 13 paths indicated a medium
significant total effect (.10-.25) and five paths indicated a small effect (.01-.09).
In 19 paths there was a change in the total effect indicating the presence of an
intervening (indirect effect).
97
Table 4.9 (Significant Regression Weights, Standardized path coefficients for full
model with significance and effect size)
Path
Direct
Effect
Sig
Total
Effect
Estimated
Effect Size
Effect
SWBEn
<--- GTL
0.57
***
0.57
Large
0.00
JobSat
<--- GTL
0.21
***
0.56
Large
0.35
PEsys
<--- GTL
0.35
***
0.55
Large
0.20
PEev
<--- GTL
0.40
***
0.54
Large
0.14
SWBA
<--- GTL
0.50
0.50
Large
***
v
0.00
HorBon
<--- PEsys
0.49
***
0.49
Large
0.00
OrgBon
<--- GTL
0.17
***
0.49
Large
0.32
JobSat
<--- PEsys
0.42
***
0.42
Large
0.00
TurnInt
<--- SWBEn
0.34
***
0.39
Large
0.05
HorBon
<--- SWBAv
0.26
***
0.37
Large
0.11
OrgBon
<--- PEsys
0.35
***
0.35
Large
0.00
PEsys
<--- SWBAv
0.25
***
0.25
Medium
0.00
JobSat
<--- SWBEn
0.19
***
0.24
Medium
0.05
SWBA
<--- GTL
0.23
0.23
Medium
***
u
0.00
OrgBon
<--- SWBEn
0.19
***
0.23
Medium
0.04
PEev
<--- SWBEn
0.20
***
0.20
Medium
0.00
TurnInt
<--- PEev
0.16
**
0.16
Medium
0.00
PEsys
<--- SWBEn
0.16
**
0.16
Medium
0.00
OrgBon
<--- SWBAu
0.18
***
0.14
Medium
-0.04
TurnInt
<--- PEsys
0.13
0.13
Medium
0.00
98
Path
Direct
Effect
Sig
Total
Effect
Estimated
Effect Size
Effect
JobSat
<--- D4
0.12
***
0.12
Medium
0.00
TurnInt
<--- D4
0.10
**
0.10
Medium
0.00
HorBon
<--- SWBAu
0.12
***
0.08
Medium
-0.04
JobSat
<--- SWBAu
0.10
**
0.06
Medium
-0.04
OrgBon
<--- D4
-0.07
-0.07
Possible Small
0.00
PEsys
<--- SWBAu
-0.09
**
-0.09
Possible Small
0.00
JobSat
<--- PEev
-0.09
-0.09
Possible Small
0.00
HorBon
<--- PEev
-0.10
-0.10
Possible Small
0.00
TurnInt
<--- SWBAv
-0.17
**
-0.12
Possible Small
0.05
PEev
<--- SWBAu
-0.03
ns
-0.03
ns
0.01
PEev
<--- SWBAv
0.08
ns
0.08
ns
0.00
TurnInt
<--- GTL
-0.01
ns
0.26
ns
0.27
HorBon
<--- GTL
0.01
ns
0.39
ns
0.38
OrgBon
<--- PEev
-0.09
ns
-0.09
ns
0.00
HorBon
<--- SWBEn
0.01
ns
0.07
ns
0.06
TurnInt
<--- SWBAu
0.03
ns
0.01
ns
-0.02
JobSat
<--- SWBAv
0.07
ns
0.17
ns
0.10
OrgBon
<--- SWBAv
0.06
ns
0.14
ns
0.08
TurnInt
<--- ANX
0.03
ns
0.03
ns
-0.01
JobSat
<--- ANX
-0.01
ns
-0.01
ns
0.00
OrgBon
<--- ANX
-0.01
ns
-0.01
ns
0.00
HorBon
<--- ANX
-0.02
ns
-0.02
ns
0.00
TurnInt
<--- AVOID
-0.02
ns
-0.02
ns
0.00
JobSat
<--- AVOID
-0.02
ns
-0.02
ns
0.00
99
Path
Direct
Effect
Sig
Total
Effect
Estimated
Effect Size
Effect
OrgBon
<--- AVOID
-0.03
ns
-0.03
ns
0.00
HorBon
<--- AVOID
-0.06
ns
-0.06
ns
0.00
HorBon
<--- D4
0.05
ns
0.05
ns
0.00
***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 n=524

According to Cohen (1988), .01-.09 is small effect , .10-.25 is medium
effect, and .25 + is large effect
100
101
Figure 4.3 (Full Structural Model)
102
H1: There is a positive relationship between rater TL and ratee perceptions about
PE effectiveness
To test H1, a multiple regression analysis (using MOS as categorical
selection variable and controlling for AT and Tenure) was conducted to determine
if rater transformational leadership is positively related to ratee perceptions about
the performance evaluation (PEeF) (combined term from perception about the PE
system (PEsys) and perceptions about the last evaluation (PEev)). As discussed
in chapter three, the analysis controlled for attachment style, type of organization
(combat arms, combat support, and combat service support) and tenure. The
resulting regression analysis indicates that, on average, rater transformational
leadership (GTL) had a significant positive effect on ratee perceptions about the
PEeF for all three organization types (Table 4.12). The analysis reveals support
for H1 with the expected variation between organization types.
For individuals with combat arms job type, the overall model indicates
that GTL accounts for approximately 35% of variability between TL and PEeF
(F(3, 305) =54.19,p<.001, R2=.35). Both tenure and attachment style are significant
contributors to the model. For individuals with combat support job type, the
overall model indicates that GTL accounts for approximately 22% of variability
between TL and PEeF F(3, 301) =9.70,p<.001, R2=.22 ). Interestingly, both tenure
and adult attachment style are not significant predictors to the model. For
individuals with combat service support job type, the overall model indicates that
GTL accounts for approximately 33% of variability between TL and PEeF. F(3,
105)
=16.99,p<.001, R2 =.33). Again, adult attachment style is not a significant
predictor in the model. Due to the limitations of SPSS further analysis was
conducted within the full structural model. The path coefficients (direct effects)
as shown in the full structural model indicated moderate to large effect (PEsys <-- GTL 0.35***, R2 .41 and PEev <---GTL 0.40***, R2 .34 ). Hypothesis 1 is fully
supported.
Table 4.10 (H1 Multiple Regression Analysis Summary)
Combat Arms
Combat Support
Combat Service
Support
Variable B
SE B
GTL
0.14
0.12
Tenure
0.62
0.04
AT
-0.30 0.13
R2
R2 = 0.35
R2 = 0.22
R2 = 0.22
F=(3,305) = 54.12***
F=(3,101) = 9.70***
F=(3,105) = 9.70***
n=309
SE B
SE
B
.58*** 1.09
0.22
.45***
1.32
0.20
.54***
-0.03*
0.04
0.26
.01(ns) -0.51 0.23
0.18**
.02*
-.08
0.08
.09(ns) -0.04 0.07
.05(ns)
n=105
Note *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001 n=524
103
n=109
104
Figuer 4.4 (H1 Path Analysis as tested within the full structrual model)
105
H2: Ratee perceptions of PE effectiveness will mediate the relationship between
rater transformational leadership and and ratees feelings about unit cohesion.
To test the mediation hypotheses a multiple mediation using
bootstrapping in SPSS v21 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was conducted. The
Preacher and Hayes (2008), INDIRECT procedure indicated partial mediation in
the full model. Hypothesis 2 is partially supported
Model 1(H2): DV = OrgBon, IV = GTL, MEDS = PEsys, PEev
1) "a" path (GTL PEsys, GTL - PEev): the path coefficient from GTL
to PEsys is .52 , p<.001 and the path from GTL to PEev is .50, p<.001.
2) "b" path (PEsys OrgBon controlling for GTL, PEev OrgBon
controlling for GTL): the path coefficient from PEsys OrgBon is .30, p<.001
however, the path coefficient from PEev OrgBon is not significant, p=.2464.
3) "c" path (GTL to OrgBon without PEsys,PEev ie. Total effect) is .34
p<.001.
4) "c' " path (GTL to OrgBon, controlling for the PEsys and PEev is Direct
effect) is .20 p<.001.
5) R square = .3181 indicates 32% of variance in the OrgBon is accounted
for by the GTL and PEsys/PEev.
6) Bootstrapped tests of the indirect effects indicate that the true total
indirect effect is 95% likely to range from .0879 to .1866 the estimated effect is
.1309. Zero does not occur between the LL and the UL therefore we can conclude
that the total indirect effect is significant
7) For the individual mediators, the indirect effects show the indirect effect via
PEsys is 95% likely to range from .1078 and .2080 and the estimated effect is
.1539. Again, zero does not occur between the LL and the UL and we can
conclude that the indirect effect for PEsys is significant. The indirect effect via
PEev is 95% likely to range from -.0747 and .0196 and the estimated effect is .0231. For PEev zero is included in the confidence interval, therefore the indirect
effect is not significant.
Model 2(H2): DV = HorBon, IV = GTL, MEDS = PEsys, PEev
1) "a" path (GTL PEsys, GTL - PEev): the path from GTL to PEsys is
.52 , p<.001 and the path from GTL to PEev is .50, p<.001.
2) "b" path (PEsys HorBon controlling for GTL, PEev HorBon
controlling for GTL): the path coefficient from PEsys HorBon is .56, p<.001
however, the path coefficient from PEev HorBon (-.11) is not significant,
p=.0493 (although not by much).
3) "c" path (GTL to HorBon without PEsys,PEev, (total effect) is .36,
p<.001.
4) "c' " path (GTL to HorBon, controlling for the PEsys and PEev (direct
5) R square = .3415 indicates 34% of variance in the HorBon is accounted
for by the GTL and PEsys/PEev.
106
7) For the individual mediators, the indirect effects show the indirect
effect via PEsys is 95% likely to range from .2274 and .3675 and the estimated
effect is .2883. Again, zero does not occur between the LL and the UL and we can
PEev is 95% likely to range from -.1063 and -.0041 and the estimated effect is .0487. For PEev, zero is not included in the confidence interval; therefore the
indirect effect is significant.
107
108

rater TL and and ratees job satisfaction.
preacher and Hayes (2008), INDIRECT procedure indicated mediation in the full
model. Hypothesis 3 is fully supported; once again the majority of the indirect
effect can be attributed to PEsys.
Model 3 (H3): DV = JS, IV = GTL, MEDS = PEsys, PEev
1) "a" paths (GTL PEsys, GTL - PEev): the path coefficient from GTL
to PEsys is .52 p<.001 and the path coefficient from GTL to PEev is .50 p<.001.
2) "b" paths (PEsys JS controlling for GTL, PEev JS controlling for
GTL): the path coefficient from PEsys JS is .59 p<.001 however, the path
coefficient (-.09) from PEev JS is not significant, p=.1376.
3) "c" path (GTL to JS without PEsys, PEev ie. (total effect) is .67 p<.001.
4) "c' " path (GTL to JS, controlling for the PEsys and PEev (direct effect)
is .41p<.001.
5) R2 = .4573 indicates 46% of variance in the JS is accounted for by the
GTL and PEsys/PEev.
109
PEev is 95% likely to range from -.1144 and .0242 and the estimated effect is .0445. For PEev zero is included in the confidence interval, therefore the indirect
110

rater TL and and ratees turnover intention.
bootstrapping in SPSS v.21 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was conducted. The
preacher and Hayes (2008), INDIRECT procedure confirmed mediation in the full
model. Hypothesis 4 is fully supported.
Model 4 (H4): DV = TI, IV = GTL, MEDS = PEsys, PEev
1) "a" paths (GTL PEsys, GTL - PEev): the path coefficient from GTL
to PEsys is .52 p<.001 and the path coefficient from GTL to PEev is .50 p<.001.
2) "b" path (PEsys TI controlling for GTL, PEev TI controlling for
GTL): the path coefficient from PEsys TI is .17 p=.0122. The path coefficient
from PEev TI is .22 p=.0013.
3) "c" path (GTL to TI without PEsys, PEev,(total effect) is .24 p<.001.
4) "c' " path (GTL to TI, controlling for the PEsys and PEev (direct effect)
is .09 and not significant.
5) R square = .1398, (p<.001) indicates 14% of variance in the TI is
accounted for by the GTL and PEsys/PEev.
indirect effect is 95% likely to range from .1226 and .2629 the estimated effect
is .1944. Zero does not occur between the LL and the UL therefore we can
conclude that the total indirect effect is significant
111
PEev is 95% likely to range from 0346 and 1758 and the estimated effect is .1091.
For PEev, zero is not included in the confidence interval; therefore the indirect
effect is also significant.
112
H5: There is a positive relationship between rater TL and ratee perceptions about
SWB.
To test H5, a multiple regression analysis (using MOS as categorical
selection variable and controlling for AT and Tenure) was conducted to determine
if rater transformational leadership is positively related to perceptions about the
secure work base (SWB) (Autonomy (SWBAu), availability, (SWBAv) and
encouragement, (SWBEn). Because of the limitations of SPSS a composite
variable SWB (comb) was created. The resulting regression analysis indicated
that, on average, rater transformational leadership had a significant positive effect
with SWB. The overall model indicates that for individuals with combat arms job
type, the overall model indicates that GTL accounts for approximately 36% of
variability between TL and SWB F=(3,305)=57.46,p<.001, R2=.361). Attachment
style is a significant contributor to the model. For individuals with combat support
job type, the overall model indicates that GTL accounts for approximately 32% of
variability between TL and PEeF F=(3,101)=16.10,p<.001, R2=.32 ). Again, only
attachment is a significant predictor to the model. For individuals with combat
service support job type, the overall model indicates that GTL accounts for
approximately 35% of variability between TL and PEeF. F=(3,105)=19.13,p<.001,
R2 =.35). Again, adult attachment style is the only additional significant predictor
in the model. Due to the limitations of SPSS further analysis was conducted
within the full structural model. The path coefficients (direct effects) as shown in
the full structural model indicated moderate to large effect (SWBAv<---GTL,
113
0.50*** R2 .25, SWBAu <--- GTL, 0.23***, R2 .05, SWBEn
<--- GTL,
0.57***, R2). Hypothesis 5 is fully supported.

Table 4.11 (H5 Multiple Regression Analysis Summary)
Combat Arms
Combat Support
Combat Service
Support
B
SE B
Variable
SE B
SE B
GTL
0.44
0.04
.47***
0.27
0.08
0.29***
0.45
0.07
0.5***
Tenure
0.04
0.05
0.04(ns)
-0.01
0.09
-0.01(ns)
0.01
0.08
0.01(ns)
AT
-0.09
0.02
-0.29(ns)
-0.14
0.03
-0.44***
-0.07
0.03
-0.23**
R2
R2 = 0.36
R2 = 0.32
R2 = 0.35
F=(3,305) = 57.46***
F=(3,101) = 16.10***
F=(3,105) = 19.13***
n=309
n=105
n=109
114
Figure 4.8 (H5 Path Analysis as tested within the full structural model)
115
116
H6: Ratee perceptions of SWB will mediate the relationship between rater TL and
ratees perceptions about unit cohesion
To test the mediation hypotheses a multiple mediation using bootstrapping
in SPSS v21 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was conducted. The preacher and Hayes
(2008), INDIRECT procedure indicated mediation in the model. There are
significant total indirect effects, therefore hypothesis 6 is supported.
Model 5 (H6) DV = OrgBon, IV = GTL, MEDS = SWBEn, SWBAv, SWBAu
1) "a" path (GTL SWBEn, GTL SWBAv, GTL - SWBAu): the path
coefficient from GTL to SWBEn is .51 p<.001, the path coefficient from GTL to
SWBAv is .42 p<.001 and the path coefficient from GTL to SWBAu is .23
p<.001.
2) "b" path (SWBEn OrgBon controlling for GTL, SWBAv OrgBon
controlling for GTL, SWBAu OrgBon controlling for GTL): the path coefficient
from SWBEn OrgBon is .18 p=.0001. The path coefficient from SWBAv
OrgBon is .12, p=.0088, the path coefficient from SWBAu OrgBon is .09
p=.0004.
3) "c" path (GTL to OrgBon without SWBEn, SWBAv or SWBAu, (total
4) "c' " path (GTL to OrgBon, controlling for the PEsys and PEev (direct
5) R square = .3341, (p<.001) indicates 33% of variance in the OrgBon is
accounted for by the GTL, SWBEn, SWBAv and SWBAu.
effect via SWBEn is 95% likely to range from .0416 and .1504 and the estimated
conclude that the indirect effect for SWBEn is significant. The indirect effect via
SWBAv is 95% likely to range from .0008 and .0979 and the estimated effect is
.0498. For SWBAv, zero is not included in the confidence interval; therefore the
indirect effect is also significant. . The indirect effect via SWBAu is 95% likely to
range from .0077 and .0438 and the estimated effect is .0223. Once again, zero is
not included in the confidence interval; therefore the indirect effect is also
significant.
Model 6 (H6) DV = HorBon, IV = GTL, MEDS = SWBEn, SWBAv, SWBAu
p<.001.
2) "b" path (SWBEn HorBon controlling for GTL, SWBAv TI
controlling for GTL, SWBAu HorBon controlling for GTL): the path coefficient
from SWBEn HorBon is .42 and is not significant p=.2490. The path
coefficient from SWBAv HorBon is .07 p<.001, the path coefficient from
SWBAu HorBon is .07 p=.0501.
3) "c" path GTL to HorBon without SWBEn, SWBAv or SWBAu, (total
effect) is .37 p<.0001.
117
4) "c' " path (GTL to HorBon, controlling for the PEsys and PEev (direct
effect) is .14 p=.0007.
5) R square = .2988, (p<.001) indicates 30% of variance in the HorBon is
effect via SWBEn is 95% likely to range from -.0301 and .1146 and the estimated
effect is .0339. For SWBEn zero does fall within the CI therefore the indirect
effect for SWBEn is not significant. The indirect effect via SWBAv is 95% likely
to range from .1035 and .2442 and the estimated effect is .1723. For SWBAv,
zero is not included in the confidence interval; therefore the indirect effect is
significant. The indirect effect via SWBAu is 95% likely to range from -.0008
and .0394 and the estimated effect is .0167. Once again, zero is included in the
confidence interval; therefore the indirect effect is also not significant.
118
119
ratees perceptions about job satisfaction.
preacher and Hayes (2008), INDIRECT procedure indicated mediation in the
model. Once again there are significant total indirect effects, therefore hypothesis
7 is supported.
Model 7 (H7 DV = JS, IV = GTL, MEDS = SWBEn, SWBAv, SWBAu
p<.001.
2) "b" path (SWBEn JS controlling for GTL, SWBAv JSI controlling
for GTL, SWBAu JS controlling for GTL): the path coefficient from SWBEn
JS is .30 p<.001. The path coefficient from SWBAv JS is .25 p<.0001, the path
from SWBAu JS is .08, p<.0001.
3) "c" path (GTL to HorBon without SWBEn, SWBAv or SWBAu, (total
effect) is .67 p<.0001.
4) "c' " path (GTL to JS, controlling for the PEsys and PEev (direct effect)
is .40, p<.0001
5) R square = .4298, (p<.001) indicates 43% of variance in the JS is
120
SWBEn is 95% likely to range from .0730 and .2409 the estimated effect is .1522.
For SWBEn zero does not fall within the CI therefore the indirect effect for
SWBEn is significant. The indirect effect via SWBAv is 95% likely to range from
.0367 and .1713 the estimated effect is .1032. For SWBAv, zero is not included
in the confidence interval; therefore the indirect effect is also significant. The
indirect effect via SWBAu is 95% likely to range from -.0001 and .0433 and the
estimated effect is .0192. Zero is included in the confidence interval; therefore the
indirect effect is not significant.
121
ratees perceptions about turnover intentions.
To test the mediation hypotheses a multiple mediation analysis using
preacher and Hayes (2008), INDIRECT procedure indicated mediation in the
model. There are significant total indirect effects mostly coming from SWBEn,
therefore hypothesis 8 is partially supported.
Model 8 (H8 DV = TI, IV = GTL, MEDS = SWBEn, SWBAv, SWBAu
p<.001.
2) "b" path (SWBEn TI controlling for GTL, SWBAv TI controlling for
GTL, SWBAu TI controlling for GTL): the path coefficient from SWBEn TI
is .45, p<.001. The path coefficient from SWBAv TI is -.15, p=.0493, the path
coefficient from SWBAu TI is .02 and not significant p=.6368.
3) "c" path (GTL to HorBon without SWBEn, SWBAv or SWBAu, (total effect)
is .28, p<.0001.
4) "c' " path (GTL to TI, controlling for the SWBEn, SWBAv and SWBAu (direct
effect) is .11, p<.0001
5) R square = .1478, (p<.001) indicates 14% of variance in the TI is accounted for
by the GTL, SWBEn, SWBAv and SWBAu.
6) Bootstrapped tests of the indirect effects indicate that the true total indirect
effect is 95% likely to range from .1066 and .2418 the estimated effect is .1732.
122
Zero does not occur between the LL and the UL therefore we can conclude that
the total indirect effect is significant
SWBEn is 95% likely to range from .1513 and .3154 the estimated effect is .2284.
For SWBEn zero does not fall within the CI therefore the indirect effect for
SWBEn is significant. The indirect effect via SWBAv is 95% likely to range from
-.1253 and .0005 the estimated effect is.-.0594. For SWBAv, zero is included in
the confidence interval; therefore the indirect effect is not significant. The indirect
effect via SWBAu is 95% likely to range from -.0184 and .0275 and the estimated
effect is .0042. Zero is included in the confidence interval; therefore the indirect
123
H9: There is a positive relationship between ratee perceptions of SWB and ratee
perceptions about PE effectiveness
A multiple regression (using MOS as categorical selection variable and
controlling for AT and Tenure) was run to predict perceptions about PE
effectiveness from SWB. For all three groups SWB statistically significantly
predicted PEeF, For Combat Arms, perceptions about SWB accounted for 35% of
the variance in perception about PE effectiveness, F=(3,305)=55.40,p<.001, R2 =
.353. For Combat Support, perceptions about SWB accounted for 31% of the
variance in perception about PE effectiveness F=(3,101)=15.33,p<.001 R2 =.313.
Finally, for Combat Service Support, perceptions about SWB accounted for 27%
of the variance in perception about PE effectiveness F=(3,105)=12.915,p<.001 R2=
.270. For each group all but tenure added statistically significantly to the
prediction, p < .01.
Due to the limitations of SPSS further analysis was conducted within the
full structural model. The path coefficients (direct effects) as shown in the full
structural model indicated moderate effect (PEsys <--- SWBAv 0.25***, PEsys
<--- SWBAu -0.09**, PEsys <--- SWBEn 0.16**, PEev
PEev <--- SWBAu -0.03 (ns), PEev <--- SWBAv
fully supported.
124
<--- SWBEn 0.20***,
0.08 (ns), Hypothesis 9 is

Combat Arms
Combat Support
Combat Service Support
Variable
SE B
SE B
SE B
PEef
0.17
0.02
.46***
0.10
0.03
0.26**
0.14
0.03
0.40***
Tenure
0.07
0.05
0.07(ns)
0.03
0.09
0.03(ns)
0.08
0.09
0.08(ns)
AT
-0.11
0.02
-0.30***
-0.14
0.03
-0.45***
-0.07
0.03
-0.23**
R2
R2 = 0.36
R2 = 0.31
R2 = 0.27
F=(3,305) = 55.40***
F=(3,101) = 15.33***
F=(3,105) = 12.92***
n=309
n=105
n=109
125
126
Figuer 4.12 (H9 Path Analysis as tested within the full structrual model)
127
Table 4.13 (Summary of Hypotheses Testing)

H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
Hypothesis
Statement
There is a positive relationship between rater TL and ratee perceptions about PE
effectiveness
Ratee perceptions of PE effectiveness will mediate the relationship between rater
transformational leadership and and ratees feelings about unit cohesion.
Ratee perceptions of PE effectiveness will mediate the relationship between rater TL
and and ratees job satisfaction.
Ratee perceptions of PE effectiveness will mediate the relationship between rater TL
and and ratees turnover intention.
There is a positive relationship between rater TL and ratee perceptions about SWB.
Ratee perceptions of SWB will mediate the relationship between rater TL and ratees
perceptions about unit cohesion
Ratee perceptions of SWB will mediate the relationship between rater TL and ratees
perceptions about job satisfaction.
Ratee perceptions of SWB will mediate the relationship between rater TL and ratee
turnover intention.
There is a positive relationship between ratee perceptions of SWB and ratee
perceptions about PE effectiveness
Supported
Partially
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Partially
Supported
Partially
Supported
Partially
Supported
Supported
128
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications of the Research
As discussed in chapter 1, this research proposed to further theory in three
broad areas, TL, SWB and PM. The specific research purpose was stated as being
four fold; first, study the effect TL and SWB have on ratees perception about PE
effectiveness. Second, explore the relationship between TL and perceptions about
SWB. Third, investigate whether perceptions about PE effectiveness mediate the
turnover intentions). Finally, study whether perceptions about SWB mediate the
satisfaction and turnover intentions). Significant to this research was the
development of a scale that measured perceptions of PE effectiveness. As outlined
in chapter 3, this scale was developed and validated using the methodology
outlined by past research (Churchill, 1979; Hinkin, 1995).
Five specific research questions were addressed:
Research Question #1, what is the relationship between raters leadership style
and ratees perceptions about PE effectiveness?
Research Question #2, what is the relationship between raters leadership style
and ratees perceptions about SWB?
Research Question #3, what is the relationship between ratees perceptions of
SWB and ratees perceptions about PE effectiveness?
Research Question #4, to what extent do perceptions about PE effectiveness
mediate the relationship between rater leadership style and work outcomes (unit
cohesion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions)?
Research Question #5, to what extent do perceptions about SWB mediate the
satisfaction and turnover intentions)?
Discussion of Findings
The overall findings of this research are as follows: (1) there is a positive
significant relationship between TL and SWB and ratees perception about PE
effectiveness, (2) perceptions about PE effectiveness does mediate the
turnover intentions), (3) perceptions about SWB does mediate the relationship
between rater leadership style and work outcomes (unit cohesion, job satisfaction
and turnover intentions) and (4) there is a significant positive relationship
between ratees perceptions of SWB and ratees perceptions about PE
effectiveness.
TL PE effectiveness direct model.
The US Army teaches and trains its leaders that, to be perceived as
effective during the PE process leaders must demonstrate certain qualities (respect
for followers, self and cultural awareness, credibility and empathy) and skills
(active listening, responding and questioning) (Army Leadership, 1999, 2006).
There is a commonality between these qualities and skills and those of the
transformational leader. The transformational leader with their enhanced ability to
communicate vision and ability to make subordinates feel they are being heard
and is more adept at giving subordinates the feeling of inclusion. This feeling of
129
inclusion is another way of saying the subordinate perceives themselves as having

a voice in the process.
Hypothesis 1 tested and confirmed the relationship between
transformational leadership and PE effectiveness. The multiple regression
analysis showed that regardless of the type of organization individuals who
perceive their rater to be transformational are also more likely to perceive the
evaluation to be effective. SEM path analysis revealed that the direct effect path
coefficients for both perceptions about PE system and last evaluation are
significant indicating that the relationship between TL and PE effectiveness is a
function of both components. This can be attributed to the very nature of the
transformational leader who ". . . recognizes and exploits an existing need or
demand of a potential follower. . . [and] looks for potential motives in followers,
seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower" (Burns,
1978: 4). This finding is consistent with past research that has shown employee
voice to be at important contributor to positive reactions about performance
evaluations (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998). The findings are also consistent
with past studies that have shown TL to be is positively related to personal
outcomes (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002).
Mediating effects of PE effectiveness
An effective PE system provides a mechanism for the leader to
communicate this vision of the organization and therefore provide a conduit thru
which transformational leadership effects work outcomes (organizational
cohesion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions)..
130
Although the initial exploratory factor analysis confirmed the expected 3

factor solution (horizontal bonding, organizational bonding, and vertical bonding)
subsequent confirmatory factor analysis for the purposes of building the
measurement model resulted in the collapsing of the vertical bonding and
organizational bonding factors into a single measure of organizational bonding.
Hypothesis 2 tested the relationship between TL and unit cohesion (organizational
bonding and horizontal bonding) as mediated by PE effectiveness. The direct
effect between TL and cohesion is well documented (Bass et al., 2003; Hardy,
Arthur, Jones, Shariff, Munnoch, Isaacs, & Allsopp, 2010). This research
confirmed that direct relationship and provided some evidence for the mediating
effect PE effectiveness has on this relationship. The analysis revealed that
perceptions about the effectiveness of the PE system do mediate the relationship
between TL and organizational bonding. Also, perceptions about the effectiveness
of the last evaluation do mediate the relationship between TL and horizontal
bonding.
This is consistent with past research indicating that organizational
cohesion (bonding) is a result of pride, shared values, and attainment of needs and
goals. The PE is forum for the development of all of these factors and serves as
conduit for the imparting of organizational information. This research shows that
when the PE system is perceived to be effective more feelings of organizational
bonding are also present. This confirms Roberts (1994) findings that an effective
PE enhances feelings of pride and attraction to the organization thus increasing
feelings of unit cohesion. Additionally, the PE system that is perceived to be
131
effective increases the individuals understanding and acceptance of the

organizational goals and strengthens the bond with the leader and the
organization. It is this mechanism that that explains why perceptions about the PE
system display a significant indirect effect on the relationship between TL and
both organizational and horizontal bonding.
Hypothesis 3 tested the relationship between TL and job satisfaction as
mediated by PE effectiveness. The direct effect between TL and job satisfaction is
also well documented (Omar & FauziHussin, 2013; Nemanich & Keller, 2007;
Scandura & Williams, 2004; Berson & Avolio, 2004). The transformational rater
can effectively communicate feedback with ratees, therefore is better able to gain
buy-in on the strategic goals of the organization (Berson & Avolio, 2004). An
effective PE system provides a mechanism for the leader to communicate this
vision of the organization and therefore strengthen the effect that transformational
leadership has on work outcomes. This research confirmed the direct relationship
and provided evidence for the mediating effect PE effectiveness has on this
relationship. Once again the majority of the effect is attributed to perceptions
about the PE system. This makes sense since an effective PE system addresses
both individual and organizational issues associated with job satisfaction.
Additionally, it stands to reason that the PE system should serve as a mediator
since the transformational rater is proactive in preventing the occurrence of workrelated problems, (Berson & Avolio, 2004) and an effective PE system serves as a
forum to this end. Without an effective PE system the transformational rater is
limited.
132
Hypothesis 4 tested the relationship between TL and turnover intentions as

mediated by PE effectiveness. The direct relationship between TL and turnover is
found within the body of research into how transformational leaders are able to
motivate followers in such a way as to develop higher levels of organizational
commitment, trust and optimism (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Further, employees who
are more committed will have less turnover intentions (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004;
Scandura & Williams, 2004). The effective PE is hypothesized to mediate the
relationship between TL and intentions to leave. This research confirmed the
direct relationship and provided evidence for the mediating effect PE
effectiveness has on this relationship.
Both the individuals perceptions about the PE system and perceptions
about the last evaluation had a significant indirect effect. Individual perceptions
about the PE system and the last evaluation both mediate the relationship between
TL and TI. Past research has indicated that an effective PE system will decrease
intentions to leave by providing a voice to the employee. The effective system set
the stages for the evaluation to take place and the effective evaluation provides
the forum for open communication. The increased communication allows the
ratee to develop a sense of hope, optimism and trust in the organization resulting
in decreased intentions to leave the organization (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Also,
individuals who have a dysfunctional relationship with the leader are more likely
to display intent to leave (Joiner, Bartram, & Garreffa, 2004). An effective PE
system executed by a transformational rater is less likely to allow for the
133
development of dysfunctional relationships and therefore more likely to decrease

intent to leave.
TL SWB direct model.
Hypothesis 5 tested and confirmed the relationship between
transformational leadership and SWB. Multiple regression analysis confirmed that
regardless of the type of organization individuals who perceive their rater to be
transformational are also more likely to perceive a secure workbase. The majority
of this effect is explained by the relationship between TL and encouragement and
availability with much less of the relationship being attributed to autonomy. The
SEM path analysis revealed significant path coefficients between all 3
components of SWB however, the autonomy path was significantly lower.
This is explained partly by the fact that feelings associated with a secure
workbase are congruent with the transformational raters focus on interpersonal
relationships (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1990). The ability to focus on these
interpersonal relationships explains why those who perceive rater as
transformational also perceive a secure workbase. Individuals who perceive a
secure workbase feel encouraged, believe theres a level of autonomy and see
their leader as being available. The transformational raters is perceived as one
who provides encouragement, motivation and is available to the subordinate. This
ability to motivate, encourage, and contribute to the personal development of the
ratee (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass et al., 2003) leads to increased feelings about
the SWB. Also, for an individual to perceive a secure workbase they must feel
that they are provided the required support when needed, that their capabilities
134
and efforts are being affirmed and appreciated, and that their acts and initiatives
are not being interfered or interrupted (Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012). These three
needs were shown to match up with strengths of the transformational leader. That
is, inspirational motivation involves inspiring others to pursue goals; intellectual
stimulation involves stimulating others and encouraging creativity (initiative)
among followers; idealized influence involves acting as a role model for followers
and finally, individualized consideration involves being supportive and
encouraging to followers as individuals. The transformational leaders ability to
provide purpose direction and motivation while projecting a sense of confidence
fosters a sense of protection within the subordinate. This sense of protection is
indicated by the relationship between the encouragement and availability
components of secure work base with perceptions about the transformational
leadership of the rater. The transformational rater is more likely to be perceived
as available and this perception of availability leads to higher perceptions of a
secure workbase. This is consistent with Bass (1985, 1998). Dvir, Eden, Avolio,
and Shamir, (2002) suggested that transformational leaders expand their
followers need portfolios by raising them or Maslows hierarchy (, p. 736).
Again, this ability to meet needs the hallmark of the transformational leader.
Mediating effects of SWB
The proposed mediating effect of SWB was proposed to be present
because the ratee rater leader relationships functions in many respects as an
attachment relationship, therefore, it was expected that ratees who form positive
relationships with their rater will reflect attachment dynamics (Mayseless &
135
Popper, 2007). Because of this, SWB was hypothesized to mediate the

relationship between TL and work outcomes (organizational cohesion, job
satisfaction and turnover intentions).
Hypothesis 6 tested the relationship between TL and unit cohesion
(organizational bonding and horizontal bonding) as mediated by encouragement,
availability and autonomy. Testing was done using Preacher and Hayes, (2008)
SPSS INDIRECT procedure. This analysis revealed significant total indirect
effects providing evidence of mediation in the model. There is significant indirect
effects present for all 3 components of SWB on organizational bonding. The
indirect effects associated with horizontal bonding are less pronounced. Only
availability showed a significant indirect effect. It can be concluded that the
mediation is primarily a function of the indirect effect perceptions of
encouragement, availability, and autonomy have on organizational bonding and
the indirect effect perception of availability has on horizontal bonding.
SWB develops from interactions with the organization or any of its
members.. their acts and initiatives are not being interfered or interrupted
(Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012, p.30). The SWB provides the transformational rater
with an environment in which their ability to motivate, encourage, and contribute
to the personal development of the ratee can be fully realized (Avolio & Bass,
1995; Bass et al., 2003).
Hypothesis 7 tested the relationship between TL and job satisfaction as
mediated by SWB. Analysis using Preacher and Hayes, (2008), SPSS INDIRECT
procedure indicated mediation in the model. There are significant total indirect
136
effects indicating mediation in the model. The significant indirect effect is as a

result of encouragement and availability not autonomy. This result indicates that
perception of a SWB (availability and encouragement) provides the environment
for the transformational rater to support the ratees perception of selfdetermination and self-worth (Deci et al., 1989). It is this interaction that leads to
the formation of a positive work value orientation and therefore results in higher
job satisfaction. Further, Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2008)
holds the view that an individuals natural or intrinsic functioning will be either
facilitated by or impeded by the social context. The perception of SWB acts as a
facilitator allowing the ratee to respond to the transformational rater. This
responsiveness is seen as supportive and therefore increases overall feelings of
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 8 tested the relationship between TL and turnover intentions as
mediated by SWB. Further analysis using Preacher and Hayes (2008), SPSS
INDIRECT procedure indicated some mediation in the model. There are no
significant indirect effects from availability or autonomy however there are
significant indirect effects stemming from encouragement.
Bass and Riggio (2006) point out that a transformational leader decreases
his/her followers intention to leave by providing the follower with information
on how the goals and values of the group, follower, leader and organization are
in basic agreement (p. 36). Individual ratee who feels encouraged within the
work base is more likely to respond to the transformational rater. Those who feel
encouraged are also more likely to display organizational commitment (Meyer et
137
al., 2002) and therefore less likely to display turnover intentions. The
transformational rater will only be able to impact on the ratees affective
commitment (want to stay) if the individual perceives a SWB, specifically
being encouraged. This research provides evidence for this relationship.
Additionally, the transformational rater will be better able to retard the process of
disengagement (Hulin, 1991) when the ratee perceives a SWB. Within the
confines of the SWB the transformational rater is better positioned to meet the
individual ratees expectations about the workplace. The transformational rater
operating in an environment where the ratee feels encouragement will decrease
the likelihood of the employee having negative feelings such as being devalued or
unrecognized as a result of the job.
Hypothesis 9 tested and confirmed the relationship between PE
effectiveness and SWB. The multiple regression analysis showed that regardless
of the type of organization individuals who perceive a SWB are likely to perceive
the evaluation to be effective. SEM path analysis revealed that the direct effect
path coefficients between encouragement and PE system is significant, the path
between encouragement and last evaluation is significant, the path between
availability and PE system is significant and the path between availability and last
evaluation is significant. The direct effect path coefficient between autonomy and
PE system is not significant nor is the path between autonomy and last evaluation
significant.
This indicates that the relationship between SWB and PE effectiveness is a
function of encouragement and availability not autonomy. When the ratees
138
needs are being met within the work base, this contributes to the overall
perceptions about the performance evaluation. The perception of an encouraging
environment opens the ratee up increases motivation and contributes to the
reduction of ambiguity (Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012). The PE system is more
likely to be perceived effective when the ratee believes the environment is
conducive to development. This perception of availability and encouragement will
increase receptivity to developmental efforts and therefore lead to more positive
perceptions about the effectiveness of the PE. When the ratee has a feeling of
comfort within the environment as indicated by the perception of availability they
are more likely to perceive an evaluation as effective. This feedback will reinforce
the feeling of availability and contribute to the overall perceptions of
effectiveness regarding the PE.
Implications of the Findings
This research was undertaken in order to better understand the antecedents
and consequences of followers perceptions about PE effectiveness. First, by
examining the influence TL has on PE effectiveness and SWB. This research
advances TL theory by testing TL effect on PE effectiveness and SWB). Second,
by exploring the concept of SWB as it applies to PE effectiveness, this research
advances the study of SWB into new direction by testing SWB effect on PE
effectiveness. Third, this research opens a new research stream that examined the
direct and mediating effects SWB and perceptions about PE effectiveness have on
specific work outcomes (unit cohesion, turnover intentions, and job satisfaction).
139
Fourth, this research expands the study of employee reactions to evaluations into
the military context.
Theoretical Implications
As discussed in chapter 1, PM, specifically employee performance
evaluations (PE) is one of the most widely researched areas in
industrial/organizational psychology (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). This research,
guided by the notion that the PM process is impacted by environmental,
organizational and individual factors provides insight into and support for further
exploration into these factors. This research found such environmental factors as
perceptions about the workbase do influence perceptions about the PM process.
Also, the results further the notion that perceived effectiveness of a PM system is
particularly contingent on the attitudes of the users (i.e., both raters and ratees).
Additionally, this research supports the initial evidence that elements of SWB are
related to positive work outcomes such as unit cohesion (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2003) and negative outcomes such as job burnout and job dissatisfaction (Ronen
& Mikulincer, 2012).
This research fills a significant gap in the literature exists regarding some
important relationships. First, there is little or no specific research into followers
perceptions about PE effectiveness. Significant to this research is the development
of a specific definition of PE effectiveness: the ratees conscious recognition that
the evaluation accurately and adequately evaluates his or her actual performance
over a set period of time, and that the evaluation is based on goals and objectives
developed jointly with the rater, further, that the ratee perceives the evaluation
140
system to be purposeful and useful to both the ratee and the organization.
Second, this research is novel in that it explores ratees perceptions about PE
effectiveness instead of as in past research other perceptions such as fairness with
the process, perceptions about utility or use and the satisfaction it raises among
employees. A scale measuring perceptions of PE effectiveness was developed and
validated using the methodology outlined by past research (Churchill, 1979;
Hinkin, 1995). Third, this research provides insight into followers perceptions
about PE effectiveness by identifying the relationship between the leadership style
of the leader charged with performing the evaluation and the followers
perceptions about PE effectiveness. This research advances previous research into
the link between leadership style (transformational leadership) and selected work
outcomes (cohesion, job satisfaction, turnover intentions) by showing the
mediating effect individual perceptions (PE effectiveness, perceptions about
SWB) has on these outcomes. This provides a possible start point for other
research that will explore the mediating effect these perceptions have on other
outcomes.
Finally, this research opens up other possible questions, such as will other
leadership styles also effect followers perceptions about PE effectiveness? Will
perceptions of SWB also mediate the relationship between other leadership styles
and work outcomes? What other work outcomes are influenced by perceptions
about the PE? This research certainly was not exhaustive and only focused on the
relationship between transformational leadership, PE effectiveness, SWB and
selected outcomes. The initial results will provide the impetus for future research.
141
Practical Implications
It is a fact that practitioners refer to PM as the Achilles Heel of human
capital management (Pulakos & O'Leary, 2011). This perception is partly due to
the inherent complexities in both the design of an effective system and the actual
implementation of the evaluation process. The importance of having a system that
is that is perceived effective by employees cannot be understated. This research
addresses some practical concerns and provides specific actionable information to
organizations that will aid in the understanding of how TL and perceptions of
SWB affect perception about PE effectiveness. This is significant because it is
advancing the practical study of TL and SWB into the realm of PM (perceptions
about PE effectiveness). This research provides a tool and methodology to explore
how individuals perceive the PE system. Through this exploration leaders will be
able to gain insights into how employees perceive the effectiveness of the PE.
This information can be used to improve the PM process. These improvements to
the PM process will ultimately enhance the performance of individuals and
groups and improve organizational effectiveness.
Limitations of the Study
Since attitudes about performance evaluations are formed over time, and it
is generally accepted that individual perceptions flow from prior attitudes, a
limitation is that the perceptions measured may be influenced by antecedent
attitudes that differ slightly from those reflected in the questionnaire. For
example, an individuals limited or improper understanding of the purpose and
objectives behind the performance evaluation system may lead to a
142
misinterpretation of effectiveness. Also, the individual may not have the ability to
make an accurate judgment of effectiveness should this view be clouded by an
ulterior motive for rating an evaluation as not effective such as personal bias with
or negative feelings for the leader and or the organization. Unidentified attitudes
could be confounding variables.
Third, this is a non-experimental study as it lacks important controls (e.g.,
random assignment) however non-equivalent group design was used to capture
differences between those with perceived transformational raters and those
without, those who perceive a secure work base and those who do not. This issue
is mitigated by the strong theoretical underpinnings of the research.
Fourth, participant reactivity or the way how participant reacts to the
experimental situation (e.g. overly cooperative, overly defensive, or hostile) was
perceived to be an issue. To avoid these problems the true purpose of the study
was not fully disclosed. Individual participants were informed about the general
purpose of the research without many specifics. Fifth, experimenter bias or the
way the experimenter influences results (e.g. by being warm and friendly with one
group of participants vs. cold and stern with other group) was a concern. To
avoid participant reactivity and experimenter bias research employed standardized
procedures.
Finally, the sample and generalizability are limitations. This research was
conducted within a military population this limits the generalizability.
143
Recommendations and Conclusions

The main conclusions and recommendations of this research can be
summarized in terms of three points. First, this research builds on the significant
contributions of transformational leadership theory, attachment theory and secure
base and applies them the study of performance management. This research is a
good first step in indicating that follower perceptions matter. More research is
needed into how various follower perceptions act as mediators and moderators in
order to help explain how leadership influences intended outcomes (Avolio,
Walumbwa,& Weber, 2010). Second, although this study is in concert with the
enormous body of research that looks at perceptions about leaders, further
research needs to take the next step and extend the model out to include actual
performance. Third, this research introduces the concept of PE effectiveness. One
possible extension of this research is to explore whether or not perceptions about
the effectiveness of a PM system can translate into actual measurement of PM
effectiveness. Fourth, this research places an emphasis on the examination of how
leadership impacts interim (perceptions about PE effectiveness and perceptions
about SWB) and ultimate outcomes (cohesion, job satisfaction, turnover
intention). The natural extension is to study whether or not these particular
variable have the same effect on performance outcomes as opposed to individual
outcomes. In summary, although this research has introduced a new and novel
way to study PM, it is only scratching the surface of the possible variables to be
studied.
144
References
Aguinis, H. (2007). Performance Management (2nd ed.), . Upper Saddle River,
NJ: : Pearson Prentice Hall.
Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational
behavior by embracing performance management research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 139-145.
Ahmed, A., Hussain, I., & Ahmed, S. (2010). Performance Evaluations Impact on
Attitudinal Outcomes and Organizational Performance. International
Journal of Business and Management, 5(10), 7-XX.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 32.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alston, B., & Mujtaba, B. (2009). Performance Management Execution For
Effective And Continuous Employee Appraisals. Journal of Business &
Economics Research, 7(9), 25-34.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411423
Avolio, B., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and
beyond.
In J. G. Hunt, H. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.),
Emerging leadersbip vistas: 29-49. Lexington MA: Heath.
145
Avolio, B., Reichard, R., Hannah, S., Walumbwa, F., & Chan, A. (2009). A metaanalytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasiexperimental studies. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 20-XX.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple
levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of
transformational leadership. . The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19-XX.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 9-XX.
Bass, B., Jung, D. I., Avolio, B. J., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit
performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New
York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and
Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
146
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How
prototypes, leniency and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings
of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. . Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 49, 18.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Application. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum.
Bennett, T. (2009). The relationship between the subordinates perception of the
leadership style of it managers and the subordinates perceptions of
managers ability to inspire extra effort, to be effective, and to enhance
satisfaction with management. Paper presented at the Academy of
Strategic Management.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1995). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling
sense of direction for your organization. . San Fransicso: Jossey-Bass.
Berson, Y., & Avolio, B. (2004). Transformational leadership and the
dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a
telecommunication firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 18.
Boachie-Mensah, F. O., & Seidu, P. A. (2012). Employees' Perception of
Perfonnance Appraisal System:A Case Study Intemational Joumal of
Business and Management, 7(2), 15.
147
Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and
organizational performance: The impact of transformational leaders.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(3), 11.
Bommer, W., Rubin, R., & Baldwin, T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective
leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 15.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and
Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(5), 901-910. Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000).
Employee Satisfaction with Performance Appraisals and Appraisers: The
Role of Perceived Appraisal Use. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 11(3), 283-299.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger. New
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York:
Basic Books (Original ed. 1969).
Branham, L. (2012). The 7 hidden reasons employees leave. (2nd ed.). New
Yourk: AMACOM.
Brannon, D., Barry, T., Kemper, P., Schreiner, A., & Vasey, J. (2007). Job
Perceptions and Intent to Leave Among Direct Care Workers: Evidence
From the Better Jobs Better Care Demonstrations. The Gerontologist,
47(6), 820-829.
148
Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 3(5), 5.
Brown, M., & Benson, J. (2005). Managing to overload? Work overload and
performance appraisal processes . . Group & Organization Management
30, 25.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's
(1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 468-478.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, S. G. (1994). Performance Appraisal: Alternative
Perspectives Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A Short Measure of
Transformational Leadership Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3).
Cascio, W. (2006). Global performance management systems . In I. Bjorkman &
G. Stahl (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resources
management (pp. 20). London: Edward Elgar Ltd .
Cascio, W., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational
psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends . . Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 9.
Cawley, B., Keeping, L., & Levy, P. (1998). Participation in the Performance
Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review of
Field Investigations Journal of Applied Psychology 83(4), 615-633.
149
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of

Marketing Constructs. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64.
Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. V. (1989). Multiple uses of
performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. . Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 5.
Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008).
CEO Transformational Leadership: the role of goal importance
congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal,
51(1), 15.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in Theory Building and
Theory Testing: A Five-Decade Study of the "Academy of Management
Journal". The Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281-1303.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in
organizations: An insiders perspective on these developing streams of
research. . The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145-179., 10, 34.
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and
review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review,
11: 5570., 11, 15.
Creswell, J., & Plano-Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
150
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). CONSTRUCT VALIDITY IN

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302., 52, 29.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of
Human Motivation, Development, and Health. Canadian Psychology,
49(3), 182-185.
Defense, D. o. (1999). Army Leadership (FM 22-100). Washington DC:
Government Printing Office.
Defense, D. o. (2006). Army Leadership (FM6.22). Washington DC: Government
Printing Office.
DeNisi, A. (2000). Performance Appraisal and Performance Management: A
Multilevel Analysis, in Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in
Organizations. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory,
Research and Methods in Organizations (pp. 35). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Derven, M. G. (1990). The paradox of performance evaluations. Personnel
Journal, 69, 5.
151
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of

transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness
and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The
road ahead (pp. 3566). . Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Duncan, F. (2007). Give me the Child and I'll Give You the Leader. What can
attachment theory teach us about leadership? The International Journal of
Leadership in Public Services, 3(3), 42. doi: 10.1108/17479886200700020
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735-744.
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2010). Exploring the relative and combined influence
of mastery-approach goals and work intrinsic motivation on employee
turnover intention. Personnel Review, 39(5), 622-638.
Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences in exploration in
adulthood: The characteristics and functions of a secure base. . Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 19.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance evaluation and management: The developing
research agenda. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
74(4), 1.
152
Fletcher, C. (2002). Appraisal: An individual psychological perspective. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. .
Fletcher, J. (2004). Appraisal system: friend or foe? Primary Health Care., 14(1),
2.
Friedkin, N. E. (2004). SOCIAL COHESION. Annual Review of Sociology, 30,
409-425.
Gabris, G. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2001). Does Performance Appraisal Contribute to
Heightened Levels of Employee Burnout? Public Personnel Management,
30(2), 1.
Gabris, G. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2001). Does performance appraisal contribute to
heightened levels of employee burnout? The results of one study. Public
Personnel Management, 30(2), 157-172.
Gesme, D. H., & Wiseman, M. (2011). Performance Evaluation: A Tool for
Practice Improvement. Journal of Oncology Practice, 7(2), 4.
Godlewski, R., & Kline, T. (2012). A Model of Voluntary Turnover in Male
Canadian Forces Recruits. Military Psychology, 24(3), 251-269.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of
Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator
Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium. [Article].
Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school
staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 42 Iss: 3, pp.333 - 356, 42(3), 23.
153
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work:
Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,
250-279., 16, 29.
Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., Jones, G., Shariff, A., Munnoch, K., Isaacs, I., &
Allsopp, A. J. (2010). The relationship between transformational
leadership behaviors, psychological, and training outcomes in elite
military recruits. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 20-32.
Harrison, R. L. (2013). Using mixed methods designs in the Journal of Business
Research, 19902010. Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 2153
2162, 66, 9.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical
perspective. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 10.
Hennessey, H. W., Jr., & Bernardin, H. J. (2003). The relationship between
performance appraisal criterion specificity and statistical evidence of
discrimination. Human Resource Management, 42(2), 143-158.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.
Holt, D. T., Rehg, M. T., Lin, J. H. S., & Miller, J. (2007). An application of the
unfolding model to explain turnover in a sample of military officers.
Human Resource Management, 46(1), 35-49.
Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, commitment in organizations
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2 ed., pp. 52).
Palo Alto, CA; : Consulting Psychologists Press.
154
Ivey, G. W., & Kline, T. (2010). Transformational and Active Transactional

Leadership in the Canadian Military Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 31 (3) 246-262, 31(3), 16.
Jawahar, I. M. (2006). Correlates of Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal
Feedback. Journal Of Labor Research, 27(2), 23.
Joiner, T. A., Bartram, T., & Garreffa, T. (2004). The Effects of Mentoring on
Perceived Career Success, Commitment and Turnover Intentions. Journal
of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 5(1/2), 164-170.
Judge, T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2012). Job Attitudes. Annual Review of

Psychology, 63, 26.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. . (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(4), 15.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. . Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(5), 13.
Karimi, R., Malik, M., & Hussain, S. (2011). Examining the Relationship of
Performance Appraisal System and Employee Satisfaction. International
Journal of Business & Social Science, 2(22), 4.
Kaymaz, K. (2011). Performance Feedback: Individual Based Reflections and the
Effect on Motivation. Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(4),
19.
155
Keeping, L., & Levy, P. (2000). Performance Appraisal Reactions: Measurement,

Modeling, and Method Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology 85, 15.
Kenny, D, A., (2014) Measuring Model Fit, http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm
accessed, 24 February 2014.
Konovsky, M., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). The perceived fairness of employee
drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. .
Joumal of Applied Psychology, 76, 9.
Kuhnert, K., W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and Transformational
Leadership: A Constructive/Developmental Analysis. Academy of
Management Review, 12(4), 9.
Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee-organization relationship
affects the linkage between perception of developmental human resource
practices and employee outcomes,. Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
45 No. 1, pp. 1-25., 45(1), 25.
Lawler, E., E. (Producer). (2008). The Four Pillars of Managing Performance.
Talent Management Retrieved from
http://talentmgt.com/articles/view/the_four_pillars_of_managing_perform
ance
Lawler, E., E. (2010). Performance Management:Creating an Effective Appraisal
System: Center for Effective Organizations Marshall School of Business
University of Southern California.
Lawrie, J. (1990). Prepare for a performance evaluation. Personnel Journal, 69, 4.
156
Locke, E. (1969). What is job satisfaction? . Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 4, 309 336., 4, 27.
Longenecker, C. O., & Fink, L. S. (1997). Keys to Designing and Running an
Effective Appraisal System. . Journal of Compensation and Benefits.
Longenecker, C. O., & Fink, L. S. (1999). Creating Effective Performance
Appraisals. Industrial Management, 41(5), 1.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness
correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic
review of the MLQ literature. . The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 40.
Lytell, M. C., & Drasgow, F. (2009). "Timely" Methods: Examining Turnover
Rates in the U.S. Military. Military Psychology, 21(3), 334-350.
Mangelsdorff, A. D., Stokes, J. W., & Jacobs, H. (1990). Cohesion in Army
Reserve
Units. Paper presented at the Proceedings, Psychology in the Department
of Defense, Colorado Springs, CO.
Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2001). Role of Organizational Identification on
Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs), Transformational Leadership and
Work Attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 247-262.
Mayseless, O., & Popper, M. (2007). Reliance on leaders and social institutions:
An attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 9(1), 7393. doi: 10.1080/14616730601151466
157
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Metaanalysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R.
(2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation,
psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. . In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53-152. ). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001).
Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational
linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. .
New York: Academic Press.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance Appraisal. An
Organizational Perspective Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal:
Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Sage.: Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Nemanich, L. A., & Keller, R. T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an
acquisition: A field study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1),
49-68.
158
O'brien, R.,M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation
factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673-690.
Omar, W. A. W., & FauziHussin. (2013). Transformational leadership style and
job satisfaction relationship: A study of structural equation modeling
(SEM). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 3(2), 346-365.
Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal
reactions: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709732.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, S., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1,107-142., 1, 35.
Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational
Leadership and Attachment. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 22.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.
Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
Pulakos, E. D., & O'Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management
broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 4(2), 18.
159
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2003).
Understanding the people and performance link: unlocking the black box.
. London.
Rafferty, A., & Griffin, M. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership:
Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15,
pp.329-354., 15, 25.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation
modeling. . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a
review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp.
698-714., 87(4), 16.
Roberts, G. E. (1994). Maximizing performance evaluation system acceptance:
Perspectives from municipal government personnel administrators. Public
Personnel Management, 23(4), 24.
Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee Performance Appraisal System Participation: A
Technique that Works. , Public Personnel Management, 32(1), 8.
Ronen, S., & Baldwin, M. (2010). Hypersensitivity to Social Rejection and
Perceived Stress as Mediators between Attachment Anxiety and Future
Burnout: A Prospective Analysis. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 59(3), 23.
Ronen, S., & Lane, S. T. (NP). The Secure Work Base scale: Development of a
measure. .
160
Ronen, S., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). The Foundation of Autonomous Motivation

in the Workplace An Attachment Perspective. Paper presented at the
Best Paper Proceedings of the 2012 Academy of Management Meeting.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Mentoring and Transformational
Leadership: The Role of Supervisory Career Mentoring. . Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 65(3), 20.
Shore, T., & Strauss, J. (2008). The Political Context of Employee Appraisal:
Effects of Organizational Goals on Performance Ratings. [Article].
International Journal of Management, 25(4), 599-612.
Siebold, G. (1999). The Evolution of the Measurement of Cohesion. . Military
Psychology, 11(1), 5., 11(1), 5.
Siebold, G., & Kelly, D. (1987). The impact of unit cohesion on unit performance,
morale, and ability to withstand stress: A field exercise example.
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences.
Siebold, G., & Kelly, D. (1988). Development of the Combat Platoon Cohesion
Questionnaire
Smith, D. R., Holtom, B. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Enhancing precision in the
prediction of voluntary turnover and retirement. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 79(1), 290-302. dSmith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969).
The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
161
Stashevsky, S., & Koslowsky, M. (2006). Leadership team cohesiveness and team
performance, . Top of Form International Journal of Manpower, 27(1),
11.
Stentz, J. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Matkin, G. S. (2012). Applying mixed
methods to leadership research: A review of current practices. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 10.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytical
findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259.
Thompson, E., & Phua, F. (2012). A Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction.
Group & Organization Management, 37(3), 32.
Trochim, W. M. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. ,
from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/>
Vasset, F., Marnburg, E., & Furunes, T. (2010). Employees' perceptions of justice
in performance evaluations. Nursing Management, 17(2), 30-34.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. . New York::
Free Press.
Wells, J. E., & Peachey, J. W. (2010). Turnover intentions: Do leadership
behaviors and satisfaction with the leader matter? Team Performance
Management, Vol. 17 Iss: 1/2, pp.23 - 40, 17(1/2), 17.
Wisecarver, M., Schneider, R., Foldes, H., & Cullen, M. (2011). Knowledge,
Skills, and Abilities for Military Leader Influence: U.S Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
162
Yagil, D. (1995). A study of cohesion and other factors of major influence on

soldiers' and unit effectiveness. . Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Youngcourt, S. S., Leiva, P. I., & Jones, R. G. (2007). Perceived purposes of
performance appraisal: Correlates of individual- and position-focused
purposes on attitudinal outcomes. [Article]. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 18(3), 315-343.
Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6 ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Zagorsek, H., Dimovski, V., & Skerlavaj, M. (2009). Transactional and
transformational leadership impacts on organizational learning Journal for
East European Management Studies, 14(2), 20.
163
Appendix A (SURVEY)
Perceived Effectiveness of the performance evaluation measured 26 Item
Performance Evaluation Effectiveness Survey (Developed specifically for use in
Dissertation), 4 questions will gather demographic and descriptive data, 20
questions gather specific perceptions about PE.
1.
Have you been evaluated in your current Position?
2.
Do you complete a self-evaluation as part of the performance evaluation
process?
3.
Did you and your rater sit down and discuss the evaluation face to face
4.
How would you describe the professional development process in your
organization
Responses will be evaluated on 5 point 1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, Neither
agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree
5.
The professional development process in my organization is effective
6.
Apart from the annual evaluation, I receive effective professional

development
7.
The Evaluation System is effective at weeding out poor performers
8.
The Evaluation System is effective at motivating employees
9.
The Evaluation System is effective at increasing productivity
10.
The Evaluation System is effective tool for retaining the best employees
11.
The Evaluation System is effective at providing employees opportunity for

growth
12.
The Evaluation System is effective at establishing goals for performance
164
13.
The Evaluation System is effective at improving the relationship between

rater and ratee
14.
The Evaluation System is effectively used as a basis for promotion
15.
The Evaluation System is effective at reinforcing organizational standards
16.
17.
My last evaluation provided accurate feedback on my past performance
18.
My last evaluation provided effective feedback on my past performance
19.
My last evaluation was based on my raters direct observation of my

performance
20.
My last evaluation was based on performance objectives established by

my rater and I
21.
My last evaluation provided me an opportunity to voice my concerns
22.
My last evaluation provided me with the tools to improve my performance
23.
My last evaluation was based on my performance not on my personality
24.
My last evaluation effectively identified how I can contribute to the

organization in the future
25.
My last evaluation established an effective roadmap for my improvement
26.
Transformational Leadership measured using the 7 Item Global Transformational

Leadership scale (GTL) (Carless, Wearing & Mann, 2000). Responses will be
evaluated on 5 point 1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, Neither agree nor disagree,
4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree
1. My rater clearly communicates a clear and positive vision of the future (GTL)
165
2. My rater treats others as individuals, supports and encourages their

development (GTL)
3. My rater gives encouragement and recognition (GTL)
4. My rater fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members
(GTL)
5. My rater encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions
assumptions (GTL)
6. My rater is clear about his/her values and practices what he/she preaches
(GTL)
7. My rater instills pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly
competent (GTL)
Job satisfaction measured by Brayfield and Rothe's (1951) scale. Responses will
be evaluated on 5 point 1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, Neither agree nor
disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree
1. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work
2. I feel fairly satisfied with my present job
3. Each day at work seems like it will never end (R)
4. I find real enjoyment in my work
5. I consider my job rather unpleasant (R)
Cohesion measured using a brief version of the "Platoon Cohesion Index", (PCI)
developed by the A.R.I, including 20 items. The PCl items include in the four
dimensions developed by the ARl organizational cohesion, vertical cohesion,
horizontal cohesion among soldiers and horizontal cohesion among commanders
166
(Siebold & Kelly, 1988). Responses will be evaluated on 5 point 1 Strongly

Disagree, 2 Disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree
Organizational Cohesion
1. Soldiers support army values
2. Leaders set example for army values
3. Soldiers know what is expected of them
4. The behaviors that will get you into trouble are well known
5. Soldiers feel they play an important part in accomplishing the unit's mission
6. Soldiers are proud to be members of the unit
7. Soldiers are satisfied with free time
8. Soldiers are satisfied with social events
9. Soldiers feel they are serving their country
10. Soldiers have opportunities to better themselves
Vertical Cohesion
11. Soldiers get help from leaders
12. Leaders and Soldiers care about each other
13. Leaders and Soldiers train well together
14. Leaders can lead Soldiers into combat
Horizontal Cohesion-Soldiers
15. Soldiers trust each other
16. Soldiers care about each other
17. Soldiers work together
18. Soldiers perform as a team
167
Horizontal Cohesion- Commanders

19. Leaders trust each other
20. Leaders care about each other
Turn over intention measured using three-item measure developed by Konovsky
and Cropanzano (1991). Language modified to better reflect the survey
population. Responses will be evaluated on 5 point 1 Strongly Disagree, 2
Disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree
1. I intend to look for a job outside of the Army within the next year
2. I intend to remain in the Army indefinitely (R)
3. I often think about leaving the Army
Perceptions of Secure work base measured with 15 item Secure Work base scale
from Ronen & Lane (2013). Responses will be evaluated on 5 point 1 Strongly
Availability
1. I do not generally count on others at work to be available to help out if I run
into trouble when pursuing personal goals. (R)
2. At work, I am usually willing to take risks and try new things because I know
that others will be available to help and comfort me if things dont turn out well.
3. At work, others do not usually go out of their way to make themselves
available to me when I am facing a challenging or difficult situation. (R)
4. When I am facing a challenging or difficult situation, others at work try to
make themselves available to me in case I need them.
168
5. At work, when I am feeling stressed about a new or an unknown situation,

others find ways to let me know that they will be available to help me if I need
them.
Reduced Intrusiveness
6. At work, others give me advices or suggestions about what to do although I did
not ask them. (R)
7. At work, others are too bossy. (R)
8. At work, others are too directive. (R)
9. At work, others encourage me to suppress my emotions or concerns. (R)
10. At work, others are too dominating in their support attempts.(R)
11. At work, when I am working on something difficult or challenging, others
sometimes try to take over and do it for me. (R)
Encouragement
12. At work, others are praising me when I do a good job.
13. At work, others are complimenting my efforts.
14. At work, others are very encouraging and positive about my abilities.
15. At work, others are encouraging me to persist at what I do.
Attachment Style measured with the 36 Item Experience of Relationships Scale
adapted from the Experience of Close Relationships Scale (ECR) (Brennan,
Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Responses will be evaluated on 5 point 1 Strongly
1. I prefer not to show others how I feel deep down.
2. I worry about being abandoned.
169
3. I am very comfortable being close to others. (R)

4. I worry a lot about my relationships.
5. Just when other people start to get close to me I find myself pulling away.
6. I worry that other people wont care about me as much as I care about
them
7. I get uncomfortable when others want to be very close.
8. I worry a fair amount about losing my connections with others.
9. I dont feel comfortable opening up to other people
10. I often wish that others feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for
them.
11. I want to get close to others, but I keep pulling back.
12. I often want to merge completely with other people, and this sometimes
scares them away.
13. I am nervous when other people get too close to me.
14. I worry about being alone
15. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with others.
(R)
16. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.
17. I try to avoid getting too close to others.
18. I need a lot of reassurance that I am liked and appreciated by other people.
19. I find it relatively easy to get close to other people. (R)
20. Sometimes I feel that I force others to show more feeling, more
commitment.
170
21. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others.

22. I do not often worry about being abandoned. (R)
23. I prefer not to be too close to other people.
24. If I can't get others to show interest in me, I get upset or angry.
25. I tell others just about everything. (R)
26. I find that other people dont want to get as close as I would like.
27. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with other people. (R)
28. When I'm not connected to people, I feel somewhat anxious and insecure.
29. I feel comfortable depending on others. (R)
30. I get frustrated when others are not around as much as I would like.
31. I dont mind asking other people for comfort, advice, or help. (R)
32. I get frustrated if others are not available when I need them.
33. It helps to turn to others in times of need. (R)
34. When other people disapprove of me, I feel really bad about myself
35. I turn to other people for many things, including comfort and reassurance.
(R)
36. I resent it when others spend time away from me.
171
Appendix B (INFORMED CONSENT)

Informed Consent Document
Dear Survey Participant:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in a research study conducted by CPT (R) Alan
Preizer, a doctoral candidate at Trident University. The purpose of this research is to
understand employees reactions to performance evaluations specifically, looking at
perceptions about the effectiveness of the evaluation. You have been selected to participate
in this survey because you are employed in a full time position and receive a performance
evaluation.
Only the responsible investigator (Alan Preizer) will have access to your responses. The
amount of time required for your participation will be 20-30 minutes. You are asked to
complete the survey to the best of your ability and to provide honest responses.
There are no physical risks associated with this study. The risks are of a psychological and
social nature. It is possible that negative emotions may be drawn out through participation
in this study as a result of the nature of the subject (performance evaluations). These
emotions could lead to both short and longterm emotional suffering. In addition, you may
have concerns about potential breaches of confidentiality that could be stigmatizing, place
you at risk of damage to a reputation and or standing in the organization. You may also be
concerned about the possibility of retribution. Please be assured that we will not share any of
your information with anyone. No one other than the researchers will know that you
participated and your answers will not be linked to any identifying information.
There will be no direct benefit of participation in the survey. However, indirect benefits may
include a better understanding of how employees reactions impact the organization.
The records of this research will be kept private. No one will ever know how you responded
or did not respond to the study questions. The types of questions asked on the survey focus
on your perceptions about the evaluation system your organization uses as well as general
questions related to you and the organization you are a part of. Access to information will be
limited to the researchers, the University Review Board responsible for protecting human
participants, and regulatory agencies. Further, no identifying information will be included in
the research findings.
Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate
and you may withdraw your consent to participate at any time. If you choose not to
participate, it will not affect your current or future relations with Trident University. You
will not be penalized in any way should you decide not to participate or to withdraw from
this study.
The researchers conducting this study are Sigalit Ronen, Ph.D., and Alan Preizer (Ph.D.
candidate). If you have any questions, you may contact Dr. Ronen at
Sigalit.Ronen@trident.edu or Alan Preizer at alan.preizer@my.trident.edu .
By signing this document you agree to participate in this study and to not discuss your
responses.
Print Full Name:
Signature:
Date:
172

Preizer (2014)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Preizer (2014)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DO RATEES PERCEPTIONS ABOUT PERFORMANCE

EVALUATIONS MATTER? THE ANTECEDENTS AND

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the College of Business of

UMI Number: 3583088

All rights reserved

2014 Alan Eric Preizer

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Employee reactions to performance evaluation

Satisfaction, Utility, Fairness vs Effectiveness

Performance Evaluation Effectiveness

Model and Hypotheses

Purpose and Contribution

Sample population and sampling frame

Data Collection Tools

Data Collection Method

Participant Safety and Confidentiality

Figure 1.1 (Conceptualization of factors involved in the performance evaluation

Following this argument, this research attempts to increase the understanding of

policies and procedures leading to more effective PE and ultimately more

As stated earlier, individuals perceptions about the effectiveness of PE

academic and practitioners knowledge about variables that affect perceptions

Turnover Intention Finding its conceptual roots within past behavioral

Chapter 2: Literature Review

transformational leaders to be more positively associated with team cohesiveness,

communication purpose facilitating the effective flow of information between

satisfaction with appraisal feedback. In addition, satisfaction with appraisal was

employees working at an international not for profit organization finding a

Model and Hypotheses

Figure 2.1 (Conceptual Model)

evaluation. Second, transformational leaders act to inspire others by

This ultimately enhances job satisfaction among employees (Omar &

organization and therefore strengthen the effect that transformational leadership

secure base functions) by social structures, institutions, and leaders is seen as

accepted and internalized by the subordinate leading to acceptance and

The connection to the organization fostered by the perception of a secure

employees intention to leave the organization. Further, the relationship between

Table 2.1 (Hypotheses)

Age (In Years)

Tenure (Years of Service)

Number of Combat Deployments

Number of Individuals you rate

Purpose and Contribution

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

availability to participate in the survey. The end state of stage IV resulted in a

Figure 3.1 (Study Population)

BDE CDR = Brigade Commander

Data Collection Tools

Table 3.1 (PE effectiveness scale Factor Analysis Pilot #1)

minimum). Using SPSS (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method)

Table 3.2 (PE effectiveness scale Factor Analysis Pilot #2)

Nomological network of the PE Scale

Figure 3.2 (Sample recruiting flyer)

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Presentation of Results

Table 4.1 (Population Demographics)

Juris Doctor (J.D.)

Medical Doctor (M.D)

Selected Population Demographics

Command Sergeant Major

Individuals Responsible for Rating

Rate at Least One

Rate three or more

Descriptive statistics about the Performance Management System

effective professional development). First, a one-way ANOVA was used to

Table 4.2 (Descriptive statistics about the Performance Management System)

.220 .123 .368 .170 .208**

.520 .113 .518 .572 .513 .333 .615 .552

p<.001, p<.01, p<.05 n=524

Note =p<.05, =p<.01, =p<.001 n=524

0.50* R2 .25, SWBAu <--- GTL, 0.23*, R2 .05, SWBEn