PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AMID A GLOBAL CRISIS: THE INFLUENCE OF LEADER BEHAVIOR AND ITS OUTCOMES
The effective leadership behaviors in performance management (ELBPM) found through this study were (1) ensures employee productivity through management support and feedback, (2) balances focus on goal achievement and people management, (3) coaches and uses online performance monitoring tools, and (4) aligns rewards with performance.
ELBPM informs organizations of leadership behaviors that enhance employee perception of fairness to reduce intentions to leave as well as increase employee productivity needed to sustain operations, and to survive, and thrive amid crises.
The study examined effective leadership behaviors in performance management (ELBPM) and the role of organization justice in mediating its relationship with perceived employee productivity and turnover intention. Using mixed-methods, qualitative data was first gathered from 60 employees through an online survey to identify ELBPM amid the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to examine the data and develop survey items. One hundred seventy-six employees (176) participated in the quantitative survey. Structural equation modeling was employed to test the relationships among the variables. Findings show that ELBPM include ensuring people productivity through support and feedback; balancing focus on goal achievement and people management; coaching and using online performance monitoring tools, and aligning rewards with performance. Results confirmed the hypothesized relationships among the variables. Findings can guide performance management systems in organizations amid changes in the work environment and contribute to efforts at shaping effective leader behaviors that affect employee performance during crises.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AMID A GLOBAL CRISIS: THE INFLUENCE OF LEADER BEHAVIOR AND ITS OUTCOMES
Amid large-scale disruptions such as the COVID-19 crisis, performance management is a means for leadership to motivate and empower employees (Den Hartog et al., 2004; Doraiswamy, 2012) so they may continue to function and meaningfully contribute to the organization. Leaders manage performance through goal-setting, monitoring and coaching, performance review, evaluation, development discussions, and rewarding performance (Villaluz, 2017). Leadership behaviors may vary across contexts (Cuhadar, 2022) and impact employee performance and outcomes (Çoğaltay, 2015).
This study sought to expand current knowledge on leadership by identifying effective leadership behaviors in performance management and relating those behaviors with positive employee attitudes and behaviors amid the global pandemic. By doing so, findings may help orient leadership development programs and contribute in efforts to enhance the effectiveness of performance management systems in organizations during and immediately after a global crisis.
Leadership as Enabler of Employee Performance Amid Crisis
Effective leadership is needed to navigate thru crises (James & Wooten, 2005). It involves organizing and directing actions, forging cooperation between groups, overcoming obstacles, and meeting others’ need for guidance and direction (Boin et al., 2013). During the pandemic, effective crisis leadership attributes include being compassionate, caring, spiritual, decisive, foresighted, inspiring confidence, transparent and visible, consultative, prayerful, proactive, solutions-oriented, positive and collaborative among others (Caringal-Go et al., 2021). Studies showed how leadership and leadership styles such as supportive, servant (Pamungkas et al. 2022) and transformational (Yücel, 2021; Mathende & Karim, 2022) affect employee performance. Although these studies examine leadership in a crisis, there seems to be a dearth of research that specifically examines leader behaviors relevant to the conduct of performance management.
Leadership Behaviors in Performance Management and Its Outcomes
Leaders are key drivers of performance management. They link work behaviors at the individual, team, and organizational levels (i.e., organization’s mission, strategic goals, and team/job requirements). Schleicher et al. (2018) suggested studying leaders’ performance management tasks and how other variables (outputs, inputs, formal/informal processes) affect performance management effectiveness. They stressed the need for more research on performance management, decision-making, and employee outcomes.
Leadership behaviors affect employee performance, perception of justice, trust in each other and the organization, and the culture and atmosphere that determine organizational dynamics (Çoğaltay, 2015). Various leadership studies examined the relationship between leadership and employee behaviors or work attitudes such as organization justice (Charoensap et al., 2019), turnover intent (Alkhateri et al., 2018; Yücel, 2021), and productivity (Asamani et al., 2016). However, studies that focused on specific leadership behavior in performance management were limited to coaching, feedback, and monitoring. For example, coaching and feedback mediated leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover intention (Lee et al., 2019). Consistent and constructive feedback predicted organization justice (Chory & Kingsley Westerman, 2009) while supervisor monitoring increased task quantity but decreased task quality (Brewer & Ridgway, 1998).
Studies that integrated all relevant behaviors in the performance management cycle and its outcomes, especially in a crisis, are scarce. This is crucial because disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic that limited supervisors’ onsite performance monitoring (Mortensen & Haas, 2021) may not be a one-time occurrence. More so, employees now prefer online or hybrid work arrangements that redefine how performance is managed in the workplace (Ng & Stanton, 2023). Leaders need new people management skills to manage remote workers and online work systems (Kirby, 2020). This study examines effective leadership behaviors in performance management and their effects on employee attitudes/behaviors like perceived organizational justice, perceived productivity, and turnover intention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As will be seen in the succeeding sections, previous studies linked these attitudes and behaviors to leadership and leader-behaviors.
Organizational Justice
Organizational justice is defined as perceptions of fairness in the workplace (Greenberg, 1987). Leadership positively impacts organizational justice with ethical, servant, transformational, supportive (Armagan & Erzen, 2015), and performance feedback behaviors (Chory & Kingsley Westerman, 2009) having the most impact. Organization justice has three dimensions—distributive, procedural, and interactional (Yean, 2016). These dimensions relate with performance management activities (Nurse, 2005) through perceived fairness in outcomes, allocation of resources, and rewards (distributive justice), the process of making performance-related decisions (procedural justice; Yadav & Yadav, 2016), and the relationships and treatment of employees that is ideally with sincerity, dignity, and respect (interactional justice; Bies & Moag, 1986). Perceptions of justice in performance management may affect employees’ organizational outcomes (Nurse, 2005). Leaders’ unfair performance appraisal processes (Maaniemi & Hakonen, 2008) and provision of rewards (Harris, 2001) negatively affect employee motivation and performance (Kagaari et al., 2010).
Productivity
Productivity contributes positively to the goals and objectives of the organization (Jex, 2002). It is a combination of efficiency (ratio of inputs to outputs) and effectiveness or the amount and quality of output relative to some standard or expectation (Payne, 2000). Previous studies show a positive impact of leadership behaviors in productivity (Misumi, 1985). Similarly, leadership styles have been shown to have a significant positive relationship to employee’s productivity in various contexts (see for example Asamani et al., 2016 and Cahyadi et al., 2022). Transformational leadership also predicted employee performance (Yücel, 2021). For example, leaders must “model the way” to maximize productivity (McNeese-Smith, 1992).
Turnover Intention
Turnover intention refers to the conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave the organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993), which has long been shown to cost organizations (Bothma & Roodt, 2013). Past studies show that transformational and transactional leadership (Wells & Peachey, 2010), leader-member exchange (Liu et al., 2013), and supervisory coaching and feedback (Lee et al., 2019) have significant negative relationship with turnover intentions. A study conducted by Yücel (2021) illustrate how transformational leadership decrease turnover intentions.
The Mediating Role of Organization Justice
Literature points to a positive relationship between organizational justice and leadership behaviors (e.g., Pillai et al., 1999). Moreover, prior studies have established the mediating role of perceived organizational justice between leadership and employee behaviors (e.g., Al Halbusi et al., 2021). Distributive justice partially mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and turnover intention (Rokhman, 2011). Leaders are the direct implementers and drivers of organization policies in performance management as they relate and work with followers. Their behaviors in turn may affect employees’ perception of fairness (distributive, procedural, interactional justice) in its implementation. If employees think that the process of making decisions is fair, they are less likely to have an intention to quit (Daly & Geyer, 1999). Performance management practices (aligning goals to business priorities, effective coaching, differentiating rewards of performers) have a strong relationship with fairness that in turn relates with individual and organization performance (Chowdhury et al., 2018).
Existing studies illustrate the mediating role of organizational justice on leadership behaviors, productivity, and turnover intention. This study seeks to add to the literature by situating these relationships in the context of a crisis, particularly in the conduct of performance management which was significantly altered due to mobility restrictions amid the COVID-19 pandemic (Mortensen & Haas, 2021). Increasing the number of integrated studies of leadership and performance management systems could foster our understanding of the potential interactions, synergies, and counterbalances between leaders and performance management systems (Tseng & Levy, 2019) and relate those leadership behaviors to employee attitudes and behaviors.
Conceptual Framework
This study explored effective leadership behaviors in performance management amid the pandemic. It also examined its relationships with employee attitudes and behaviors—perceived organizational justice, perceived productivity, and turnover intent. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed relationships among the variables.
Citation: Performance Improvement Quarterly 37, 1; 10.56811/PIQ-23-0038
The proposed relationship among the variables were drawn from the assumptions of the Social Exchange Theory. The dynamics of leadership-followership have often been explained as a social exchange (Bass, 2008). The exchange is established and maintained if the benefits to both the leaders and the followers outweigh the costs (Homans, 1961). This exchange is fair if “the leader gives things of value to the followers such as the sense of direction, values, recognition, and receive other things in return such as esteem and responsiveness” (Hollander, 1987, p. 16). Followers expect that the leader will enable them to achieve favorable outcomes. They believe that for exchanges to be fair, rewards must be distributed equitably. However, they will perceive the leader’s failure in this regard as unjust, if the leaders have not made efforts or is self-serving (Bass, 2008). Basically, there is a psychological agreement between leaders and followers that rely on various expectations and actions from each other (Hollander, 1987) through exchanges that happen in the performance management process. In this study, the followers’ perception of the leadership behaviors in performance management is investigated and how it affects the followers’ perception of fairness in the organization and their attitude and behavioral responses such as turnover intent and productivity.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The current study aims to answer the following questions:
-
What do employees perceive as effective leadership behaviors associated with performance management amid global crisis?
-
Do perceived effective leadership behaviors in performance management (ELBPM) predict perceived organization justice (POJ), perceived productivity (PP), and turnover intent (TI)?
-
Does POJ mediate the relationship of ELBPM with perceived productivity, and turnover intent?
This study hypothesizes that:
-
Effective leadership behavior in performance management predicts perceived organization justice, perceived productivity, and turnover intent.
-
Organizational justice mediates the relationship of ELBPM with perceived productivity and turnover intent.
METHOD
The study was part of a broader study on performance and rewards management conducted by a university-based center for organization research and development. It mainly utilized a quantitative approach with preliminary qualitative data gathering used to identify and construct a scale on effective leadership behaviors in performance management (ELBPM). All data gathering activities were conducted after acquiring ethics clearance from the researchers’ university. The survey measured employee’s observed ELBPM, perceived organizational justice, turnover intent, and perceived productivity and was administered to workers across various occupation groups. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was employed to test the proposed relationship among variables.
Research Setting
The Philippines is a developing country located in Southeast Asia. The enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) implemented by Philippine government in March 2020 prompted many organizations to shift to work from home arrangement or transition to having skeletal forces for reduced operations (Medialdea, 2020). Various levels of quarantine measures and alert level systems were implemented depending on cases to control the spread of COVID-19 virus (IATF Secretariat, 2020) until early 2022.
Preliminary Qualitative Data Gathering and Analysis to Determine ELBPM
The items for ELBPM were developed based on the qualitative data from a questionnaire in the first phase of the center’s study. There were 60 employees who participated in the qualitative survey (67% female, 32% male, 2% preferred not to say), with ages ranging from 22 to 60 years old (M = 37.36, SD = 11.12) and organization tenure ranging from 6 months to 33 years (M = 8.84, SD = 8.64). Majority of the participants were single (63%), half were managers (50%), while 28% were rank and file employees, and 22% were supervisors.
The responses to the question, “In your experience, what are the best practices of your organization in terms of performance management?” were used to identify the relevant behaviors. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using the procedures of Clarke and Braun (2013). The main research proponent and two inter-coders independently coded the data before conducting a series of meetings to agree on the themes and the quotes belonging to each theme. Survey items were then developed based on the results of the thematic analysis. Table 1 presents the themes with descriptions derived from actual quotes from the participants.
MAIN STUDY: QUANTITATIVE
Participants
An initial 30 participants were invited to participate in the pilot study. Participants of the actual survey were 232 respondents. However, after data cleaning only 176 were included in the analysis due to missing responses. The participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 63 years (M = 39.03, SD = 11.86); 58% were female, and 46% were single. Their organization tenure ranged from 1 to 36 years (M = 8.67, SD = 8.28). Various levels were represented, with 28% managers, 23% rank and file employees, 19% supervisors, 18% technical/individual contributors, and 13% preferred not to say. Participants had different work arrangements: 42% had a combination of office and work from home, 24% remote work, 22% office based, and 13% preferred not to say.
Data Gathering Instruments and Procedures
Data was gathered through an online survey. Informed consent was obtained by first presenting relevant information, such as the purpose of the study, procedures, benefit and risk, and rights of participants. The participants indicated consent by continuing to the survey proper, which included the constructed questionnaire on effective leader behaviors in performance management, organization justice, turnover intent, and perceived productivity. Demographic information was also asked.
Effective Leadership Behaviors in Performance Management (ELBPM)
The 32 ELBPM items were subjected to Principal Factor Analysis (PCA) with an orthogonal (varimax) rotation. Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.36 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin value was 0.95, falling into the range of “superb” values. Additionally, the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p = .00), supporting the factorability of the data.
Table 2 shows the results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Principal Component Analysis with varimax rotation confirmed the presence of four factors explaining 73.79% total cumulative variance of ELBPM.
Factor 1 labeled ensures employee productivity through management support and feedback refer to behaviors such as assesses situation, adjusts deliverables and make them realistic to COVID-19 situation, flexibility in monitoring, monitors output, recognizes contribution, gathers feedback, provides constructive feedback, focuses on what can be improved, checks-in how people are doing, provides support, transparent, and discusses performance evaluation ratings. It accounted for 61.41% of the total variance and had a high internal consistency of α = .95.
Factor 2 labeled balances focus on goal achievement and people management refers to sets goals and performance expectations, conducts goal setting meetings, discusses goals, regularly monitors/checks, communicates, gives real time and short feedback, evaluates performance, enables development and improvement. This factor accounted for 5.22% of the total variance and had a high internal consistency of α = .96.
Factor 3 is coaches and uses on-line performance monitoring tools This includes the use of online tools and applications given the work from home set-up, use of various online tools to measure performance, and regularly coaches. It accounted for 3.76% of the total variance and had internal consistency of α = .88.
Lastly, Factor 4 is aligns rewards with performance This pertains to aligning bonuses and salary increases on the result of performance evaluation and ensuring all are rewarded based on performance. It accounted for 3.41% of the total variance and had a high internal consistency (α = .92).
Organizational Justice
The organization justice scale was adopted from Moorman’s (1991) scale and used 6-point response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Total reliability score for the entire organization justice scale was α = .97. There were three subscales.
Distributive justice (five items, α = .91) measured the fairness of different work outcomes, including pay level, work schedule, workload and job responsibilities. Sample items were “My work schedule is fair” and “I feel that my job responsibilities are fair.”
Procedural justice (six items; α = .94) measured the degree to which job decisions included mechanisms that ensured the gathering of accurate and unbiased information, employee voice, and an appeals process. Sample items were “All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees.” and “Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by their supervisors.”
Interactional justice (nine items; α = .98) measured the degree to which employees felt their needs were considered and adequate explanations were made for job decisions. Sample items were “When making decisions about my job, the supervisor offers explanation that makes sense to me” and “Concerning decisions made about my job, the supervisor discusses the implications on the decision with me.”
Through factor analysis of the scale, distributive justice items (five items; α = .91) loaded together. Two of the procedural items loaded together (two items; α = .74) while the other three loaded on interactional justice (12 items; α = .98). These factor loadings were used for further data analysis.
Turnover Intention
The turnover intention subscale (three items; α =. 94) by Meyer et al. (1993) was used. A sample item is “I often think about leaving my current employer.” A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) was used.
Perceived Productivity
The perceived productivity scale (six items; α =. 85) by De Guzman and Teng-Calleja (2018) was used. Two items were developed by De Guzman and Teng-Calleja (2018) while four items came from Lurey and Raisinghani (2000). Sample items include “In the past, I have been effective in reaching my work goals” and “I work efficiently.”
Data Processing
After cleaning the data, the data set was subjected to descriptive analysis using SPSS. The validity of the items measuring the effective leadership behaviors in performance management was established using principal component factor analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The final labels for the four factors of leadership behaviors in performance management (ELBPM) were determined using the Delphi process (i.e., seven leadership and organization development experts were asked to review and recommend theme labels).
Parceling
To reduce the complexity of the model as well as make the analysis feasible, the items of ELBPM and Organization Justice were parceled. This was done by computing the means of several item then combining them to manifest variables. The resulting aggregates were used as manifest variables for calculating the latent scores of ELBPM and Organization Justice. From a modeling perspective, parceling has been shown to stabilize parameter estimates and to improve model fit (Matsunaga, 2008).
Calculation of Latent Scores
Instead of calculating the mean or sum of each aggregate variable, factor analysis was used to estimate the latent scores. This was done by using maximum likelihood extraction, with forced number of factors. The use of latent scores provides a better estimation of results of the Structural Equation Modeling because it takes into consideration the different loadings of each item, rather than considering them as equal contributors.
Data Analysis
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using EQS 6.4 was conducted to test the hypotheses and predicted relationship among variables. Due to the skewness of the data, robust method was conducted to correct for non-normality and the small sample size. Additionally, SEM was also used to confirm the validity of the measurement model of effective leadership behavior in performance management, perceived organization justice, turnover intent, and perceived productivity as latent constructs on their corresponding manifest variables, and the questions of the study (Savalei & Bentler, 2006).
Model fit was assessed through EQS using comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square of approximation (RMSEA), Satorra-Bentler chi-square probabilistic value and normed square (χ2/df) statistic. Model fit would be acceptable if CFI’s value was >0.90 (McDonald & Ho, 2002), RMSEA’s value was <0.08 (Hair et al., 2010), Satorra-Bentler chi-square probabilistic values was > 0.05, and normed chi-square (χ2/df) was 3 or less (Moss, 2016). We ran three rounds of analysis using the model and identify the model with the best fit with significant paths.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
The perceived effective leader behaviors in performance management during COVID-19 derived from this study were (1) ensures employee productivity through management support and feedback, (2) balances focus on goal achievement and people management, (3) coaches and uses on-line performance monitoring tools, and (4) aligns rewards with performance. As seen in Table 3, effective leadership behavior in performance management has a mean of 4.41 (SD = 1.02), which implies that respondent “somewhat agree” to “agree” that they have observed their supervisors demonstrate effective leadership behaviors in performance management. Balances focus on goal achievement and people management had the highest mean score of 4.53 (SD = 1.04) followed by ensures employee productivity thru management support and feedback, which had a mean score of 4.34 (SD = 1.05). Aligns rewards had the highest variability while perceived productivity (PP) had the least variability. Perceived organization justice had a mean of 4.45 (SD = .99) with interactional justice having the highest mean of 4.59 (SD = 1.05). This indicates that respondents “somewhat agree” to “agree” in their perception of fairness especially in interactions. Turnover intent had a mean of 2.58 (SD = 1.23), which implies participants “rarely” to “sometimes” think of leaving the organization. Lastly, perceived productivity had a mean of 5.81 (SD = .76), which implies respondents “agree” to “strongly agree” that they rate themselves productive.
The correlations showed that all latent variables were significantly associated with each other except for perceived productivity with coaches and uses on-line performance monitoring tools. Of note, ELBPM was positively and very strongly correlated with perceived organization justice (r = .84, p < .01), while it was also moderately and inversely correlated with turnover intent (r = −.44, p < .01). On the other hand, ELBPM was weakly correlated with perceived productivity (r = .18, p < .05).
Structural Equation Models 1 and 2
The measurement model of the SEM showed that all parcels and individual items loaded properly on their corresponding factors (see Table 4). The first round of SEM conducted aimed to validate the initial proposed framework (see Figure 2). The analysis showed that the model is an adequate fit for the data, with three of the four goodness-of-fit indices satisfied. ELBPM was shown to be a positive and strong predictor of perceived organization justice [B = .90, R2 = .81, p < .05]. Organization Justice was a negative and moderate predictor of turnover intent [B = −.65, R2 = .28, p < .05].
Citation: Performance Improvement Quarterly 37, 1; 10.56811/PIQ-23-0038
However, ELBPM had non-significant direct paths to turnover intent and perceived productivity while organization justice had a nonsignificant path to perceived productivity. The figure below shows the pathway coefficients of the original model. Wald’s test suggested the removal of the path of ELBPM to perceived productivity and the path of ELBPM to turnover intent, which was done for the second and third SEM rounds, respectively.
Final Model
In the final model (see Figure 3), all the paths were significant. The goodness fit was obtained as follows: χ2/df = 1.62; high CFI = .95; RMSEA= .06. Overall, the model obtained an adequate fit as the values demonstrate that the good fit indices are within the required parameters. However, the Satorra-Bentler χ2 (101, N = 176) = 163.59, p < .01 was significant. ELBPM was shown to be a positive and strong predictor of perceived organization justice [B = .90, p < .05]. Organization justice was a negative and moderate predictor of turnover intent [B = −.52, p < .05]. Perceived organization justice was a weak positive predictor of perceived productivity [B = .26, p < .05]. ELBPM explains 80% of the variance in perceived organization justice while perceived organization justice accounts for 27% of the variance in turnover intent and 7% of the variance on perceived productivity.
Citation: Performance Improvement Quarterly 37, 1; 10.56811/PIQ-23-0038
DISCUSSION
The objective of the study was to identify effective leadership behaviors in performance management (ELBPM) amid a global crisis and examine the relationships between ELBPM, perceived organization justice, turnover intent, and perceived productivity. The effective leadership behaviors in performance management found through this study were (1) ensures employee productivity through management support and feedback, (2) balances focus on goal achievement and people management, (3) coaches and uses online performance monitoring tools, and (4) aligns rewards with performance. Results of the quantitate study confirmed the hypotheses that ELBPM predicts perceived organization justice directly and indirectly predicts turnover intent and perceived productivity through organization justice, and that organization justice mediates the relationship of ELBPM with turnover intent and perceived productivity.
The mediating effect of organization justice can explain the nonsignificant direct paths of ELBPM to perceived productivity and turnover intent and organization justice to perceived productivity in the hypothesized baseline model. With the dropping of the non-significant paths of ELBPM to perceived productivity and turnover intent as recommended by the Wald’s test, the path of organization justice to perceived productivity and turnover intent became significant. Findings show that when employees observe leadership behaviors in performance management are fair in outcomes, procedures and interaction, this leads to an increased self-productivity perceptions and decreased likelihood to leave the organization. The strong prediction and relationship of ELBPM with perceived organization justice can be attributed to the leader’s transparency, on-going communication and interaction, involving employees in the performance management process, and alignment of rewards with performance which are similar to the organization justice dimensions. When employees observe fairness in the leadership behaviors in performance management, the less likely they will leave the organization. As for the weak prediction of perceived productivity, this may be explained by the disruption brought about by the shift to work from home arrangement or transition to having skeletal forces for minimum/partial operations (Medialdea, 2020).
Results support previous studies with similar directional relationships. For example, extant literature (Kurian & Nafukho, 2022; Taner et al., 2015) show that supportive leadership and authentic leadership that promote a fair climate positively predict organization justice. Results show that organization justice fully mediated the relationship between ELBPM with turnover intent and perceived productivity. These relationships of the variables are reflected in the final model. The leadership behaviors in performance management are expectations and actions (Hollander, 1987) expected from the leader. From the perspective of Social Exchange Theory, seeing these behaviors in their leaders engendered positive employees’ view of organization justice and decreased their intention to leave and increased productivity. Furthermore, the findings lend support to Awan et al. (2020) to include fairness in a performance management effectiveness model.
Ensures employee productivity through management support and feedback stood out as having the highest variance. It not only integrates the expected leadership behaviors in performance management cycle but includes effective crisis leadership attributes, which lends support to the study by Caringal-Go et al. (2021). Feedback behaviors support supervisory coaching behaviors (Ellinger et al., 2003) and personalized, data-driven employee feedback (Chowdhury & Williams, 2020). These behaviors show context adaptation and can help build a culture of trust, transparency, and openness during the pandemic.
Balances focus on goal achievement and people management is reflected in performance planning, commitment, review, and feedback, training, and development. Leaders help workers adjust. Facilitating development supports past research (Gregory & Levy, 2010). Leaders provided development opportunities due to work disruption and online technology.
Coaches and uses online performance monitoring tools are linked to performance review and feedback. The pandemic’s work-from-home setup and leader’s flexible monitoring strategy were unique. This confirmed past studies that performance management needs to adapt digital tools and technology (McAuliffe, 2021), which was accelerated by the pandemic. Finally, the performance rewards phase aligns rewards with performance. Recognizing and rewarding employees illustrate care and attention. Past studies show that leaders align rewards, incentives, and bonuses with performance standards and evaluation results (Brauns, 2013).
The ELBPM findings reflect Filipino culture. The leader meets with employees one-on-one and in teams through regular online social interactions. Filipinos value relationships and have a collective nature. The “kumustahans” and team meetings foster a sense of belonging (Hofstede, 1984). When the leader regularly checks-in on how the employees are doing, gives organization performance updates and support where needed, these show the leader’s care, constant and open communication. These ongoing interactions support Tseng and Levy’s (2019) emphasis on relationship quality. These regular exchanges and the leader’s concern for employees (malasakit) can build trust between them (Franco, 2017). Culture and context need to be considered in the performance management processes to help leaders effectively adapt to crises (Cuhadar, 2022).
Finally, organizations must manage attrition and performance amid disruptions. ELBPM informs organizations of leadership behaviors that enhance employee perception of fairness to reduce intentions to leave as well as increase employee productivity needed to sustain operations, and to survive, and thrive amid crises.
Limitations and Implications for Research
The study has limitations despite its contributions. First, since this study focused on Philippine-based companies, future studies may include data from other contexts. Second, the study was unable to identify performance evaluation instruments and employee perspectives across job levels. An inquiry to the type of performance evaluation instruments used, as well as the inclusion of more rank-and-file employees and individual contributors may be considered in future research. Finally, exploring other outcome factors like organizational citizenship behaviors and work engagement may also be of value.
Implications for Practice
The findings have implications on the performance management system (PMS), and organization leadership during crises. First, PMS needs to be more agile and collaborative as reflected in on-going conversations throughout the PMS cycle. Thus, integrating these ELBPM behaviors to the PMS and orienting leaders as well as employees on these changes will help the organization. Second, leaders need PMS knowledge and skills to implement it. Facilitating one-on-one, team, feedback, performance review, and coaching conversations requires interaction skills. Moreover, the new workplace requires digital skills. Orienting leaders on ELBPM will help them manage the organization and people’s performance.
Third, leaders need diagnostic, intervention, and evaluation skills in organization development. Leaders must assess the organization in the context of the crisis (environmental scan, organization diagnosis, people’s needs, and development needs), adapt and adjust work strategy/set-up, interventions like remote work, and deliverables. Data can help them assess employee performance, redesign the PMS, and implement new policies, procedures, and practices. Diagnosing needs and empathy will help them support employees. They can also use ELBPM and company practices to boost productivity and retention. Their informed decisions can help the organization maintain performance and thrive during crises.
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to literature by providing insight to leadership behaviors in performance management during a crisis and their effects. In particular, the study identified ELBPM during the COVID-19 pandemic, and demonstrated how it can lead to perceived organization justice, which in turn impacts turnover intent and perceived productivity among employees. Findings can serve as guideposts for performance management and leadership development as organizations evolve amid and the continuously changing post-pandemic context.
Hypothesized Model
Initial Model
Final Model
Contributor Notes
Dr. EMILY ANN I. LOMBOS, is a lecturer at the Psychology Department of the Ateneo de Manila University. She has a PhD in Leadership Studies Major in Organization Development.
Dr. MENDIOLA TENG-CALLEJA, is a Professor at the Psychology Department of the Ateneo de Manila University and the Executive Director of Ateneo CORD. Her PhD is in Social-Organizational Psychology.
Dr. JAIMEE FELICE CARINGAL-GO, is an Assistant Professor at the Psychology Department of the Ateneo de Manila University and Research Director for Ateneo CORD. She has a PhD in Psychology.
Dr. EDNA P. FRANCO, is an Associate Professor at the Psychology Department of the Ateneo de Manila University and Special Projects Director for Ateneo CORD. Her PhD is in Social-Organizational Psychology.
