EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 245 (2021) E3S Web Conf., 245 (2021) 03035 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 245, 2021
2021 5th International Conference on Advances in Energy, Environment and Chemical Science (AEECS 2021)
Article Number 03035
Number of page(s) 10
Section Chemical Performance Research and Chemical Industry Technology Research and Development
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202124503035
Published online 24 March 2021
  1. Longenecker C O, Gioia D A. (2000) confronting the politics in performance appraisal. Business Forum, 25(6): 17–23. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arshad M A., Masood M T., Amin G. (2013) effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction, turnover intention and loyalty to supervisor: study with reference to the telecom organizations of Pakistan. International Review of Management & Business Research, 2(3):653–673. [Google Scholar]
  3. Z. Wu, JM. Sun. (2006) Politics in performance appraisal. Research on Economics and Management, 27(2):21–26. [Google Scholar]
  4. YY. Chen, YC. Zhang. (2008) Political Consideration in Performance Appraisal——On the Basis of Content Analysis in China Contex. Management Review, 20(9):39–50. [Google Scholar]
  5. HY. Wang. (2017) The Effects of Performance Appraisal Politics on Employee’s Creative Behavior: The Role of Leader-Member Exchange Relationship Differentiation. Contemporary Economic Management, 39(10):56–66. [Google Scholar]
  6. HY. Wang, ZX. Chen. (2015) A Literature Review of Performance Appraisal Politics. Foreign Economics & Management, 37(9):57–67. [Google Scholar]
  7. Poon J M L. (2004) effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Personnel Review, 33(3): 322–334. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sogra K J, Shahid A I, Najibullah S. (2009) organizational outcomes of the employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal politics: a study on executive MBA students in Bangladesh. South Asian Journal of Management, 16(3):43–60. [Google Scholar]
  9. SS. Zhao. (2012) Empirical Research on the Influence of Performance Appraisal Politics to Individual Knowledge Sharing. Nankai Business Review, 15(3):150–160. [Google Scholar]
  10. Longenecker C O, Ludwig D. (1990) ethical dilemmas in performance appraisal revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(12):961–969. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Y. Fan, X. Zhang, J. Yan. (2013) A Review of Organizational Commitment Based on the Theory Evolution. Management Review, 25(1):101–113. [Google Scholar]
  12. JC. Zhang, WQ. Ling. (2013) The Impacts of Perceptions of Organizational Politics on R&D Employees’ Work Attitudes: An Empirical Analysis Based on Conservation of Resources Theory. Science of Science and Management of S.& T, 34(2):134–143. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rong Z, Cao G. (2015) a framework for research and practice: relationship among perception of organizational politics, perceived organization support, organizational commitment and work engagements. Open Journal of Business & Management, 03(4):433–440. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. YH. Lin, K. Chen. (2016) Leader-member Exchange and Employees’ Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: A Differential Mode Perspective. Journal of Management Science, 29(5):57–70. [Google Scholar]
  15. Choi S B, Ullah S E, Kwak W J. (2015) ethical leadership and followers’ attitudes toward corporate social responsibility: the role of perceived ethical work climate. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 43(3):353–365. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. GJ. Zhang. (2018) Research on the Structure of Political Behavior of Performance Appraisal in China. Journal of China University of Geosciences(Social Sciences Edition), 18(6):154–168. [Google Scholar]
  17. J. Luo. (2007) A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fullment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management. Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Wu Han. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wisanupong P, Michael T F. (2017) does public service motivation always lead to organizational commitment? Examining the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership. Public Personnel Management, 46(3) 211-238. [Google Scholar]
  19. H. Luo, SQ. An. (2011) Analysis of political behavior in organizational performance appraisal. Human Resource Management, 6(3):38–39. [Google Scholar]
  20. D. Ni, XM. Zheng. (2018) The Effect of Abusive Supervision on Moral Disengagement: Based on Self-Regulation Theory. Science of Science and Management of S.& T, 39 (7):146-161. [Google Scholar]
  21. Van H, Anahi N, Wendy D W. (2018) does job insecurity hinder innovative work behavior? a threat rigidity perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2(1):19–29. [Google Scholar]
  22. Brown M, Hyatt D, Benson J. (2010) consequences of the performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review, 39(3):375–396. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Nikhil S, Arthi J. (2108) perceived organizational support and work engagement: mediation of psychological capital -a research agenda. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 7(1):33–40. [Google Scholar]
  24. Z. Liu, SD. Yan, HY. Jiang. (2018) The Effect of E-leadership on Employee Engagement——Based on the Mediating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support. Soft Science, 32(7):65–69. [Google Scholar]
  25. Saad S K, Elshaer I A. (2017) organizational politics and validity of layoff decisions: mediating role of distributive justice of performance appraisal. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(8):805–820. [Google Scholar]
  26. XP. Liu, CM. Wang. (2001) Organizational commitment and its formation process. Nankai Business Review, 2001, 4(6):58–62. [Google Scholar]
  27. SL. Cai, Y. Gao. (2019) Ethical Relief and Attribution: Why do employees remain silent in the face of enterprise non-ethical behavior? Journal of Business Economics, 39(2):30–40. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rhoades L, Eisenberger R. (2002) perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of Apply Psychology, 87(4):698–714. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wen S. (2018) the effect of result publicity on self-serving attribution bias—— a social comparison perspective. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 12(1):7–8. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim K Y, Eisenberger R, Baik K. (2016) perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment: moderating influence of perceived organizational competence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(4):558–583. [Google Scholar]
  31. Malik S Z, Kazmi S Z, Nadeem N. (2016) the effect of perceived organizational support on doctors’ organizational commitment in Pakistan. Lahore Journal of Business, 4(2):73–92. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moon J S, Choi S B. (2017) the impact of career management on organizational commitment and the mediating role of subjective career success. Journal of Career Development, 44(3):191–208. [Google Scholar]
  33. WQ. Ling, ZC. Zhang, LL. Fang. (2000) The research on the structure model of Chinese employee’s organizational commitment. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 3(2):76–81. [Google Scholar]
  34. ML. Wu. (2017) Operation and Application of Structural Equation Model AMOS. Chongqing University Press. Chongqing. [Google Scholar]
  35. YY. Wang, JY. Duan. (2015) How do political skills influence employee voice behavior: the role of relationship and performance. Management World, 31(3):102–112. [Google Scholar]
  36. Baron R M, Kenny D A. (1986) the moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51(6):1173. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. ZH. Gao, C. Zhao. (2014) Does Organizational Politics at the Workplace Harm Employees’ Job Performance? A Person-Organization Fit Perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(8):1124–1143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.