Performance evaluation systems play an important role in improving accountability and effectiveness within public sector bureaucracies. Public sector organisations should use a range of performance indicators to assess employees’ contributions and encourage greater productivity objectively. However, behind their seemingly measurable design, these systems may also carry consequences that are not always immediately visible.
In the FEB UGM Podcast program, a practitioner from the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP), Meita Wulandari, S.E., presented findings from her research titled “Justice Violations in Performance Evaluations: Exploring the Dark Side of Management Control in the Public Sector.” The study examines how violations of fairness within performance evaluation systems can influence employees’ perceptions and behavior in the public sector.
According to Meita, public sector management reforms that adopt the New Public Management (NPM) concept have encouraged government organizations to implement more structured performance measurement systems. Various quantitative indicators, performance targets, and transparent public reporting have become part of efforts to improve bureaucratic accountability.
Nevertheless, a growing body of literature suggests that indicator-based systems can also produce unintended consequences.
“On paper, the organization’s performance scores may look good, but they do not necessarily create real impact. They only fulfil the indicator numbers, but fail to achieve the actual purpose of those indicators,” she explained.
In her research, Meita uses the concept of injustice or a violation of the justice rule to explain how violations of fairness can occur within performance evaluation systems. She notes that these violations can arise from two main sources: design injustice and implementation injustice.
Design injustice refers to the unfairness embedded in the design of the performance evaluation system. For example, employees may not receive clear communication about the evaluation criteria. Meanwhile, implementation injustice refers to unfairness that occurs during the application of the system by supervisors or organizations. It can happen when employees’ voices are not heard in the evaluation process, even though procedures for participation formally exist.
According to Meita, such violations of fairness rules shape employees’ perceptions of injustice toward the performance evaluation system as a whole.
“When employees repeatedly encounter unclear criteria, feel unheard, or believe that outcomes are not proportional to their efforts, they eventually conclude that the performance evaluation system itself is unfair,” Meita stated.
To better understand this phenomenon, the study involved 548 respondents from the Directorate General of Taxes. Data analysis using structural equation modelling based on partial least squares (SEM-PLS) took place. The research also combined quantitative and qualitative approaches, using in-depth interviews to explore the reasoning behind the survey’s statistical findings.
Measuring injustice within organizations is not easy. According to Meita, one of the main challenges of the research lies in the sensitive nature of the issue. Employees are often reluctant to share experiences related to organizational unfairness.
The findings show that perceptions of injustice in performance evaluation systems can trigger a phenomenon known as performance gaming. This phenomenon arises from employees’ responses to performance evaluation systems they perceive as unfair. From the perspective of social exchange theory, employees who feel unfairly treated may respond to the system in particular ways.
Meita explained that this behaviour can be viewed from two perspectives. On one hand, performance gaming can be viewed as a form of deviant behavior. On the other hand, it may also emerge as an adaptive response to a perceived unfair system.
“Sometimes employees think, ‘Well, the key performance indicators are already difficult to achieve, and the evaluation is not good anyway, so it’s not really my fault if I do this.’ When targets are too difficult, employees may try to work around the system in such ways,” she said.
Meita argues that, based on these findings, improvements to public-sector performance evaluation systems need to be implemented more comprehensively. One key recommendation is to avoid excessive reliance on a single performance score when making important decisions.
“Do not tie someone’s future to a single ranking. One performance score should not be the sole determinant of decisions such as allowances, promotions, or transfers. Although the score can serve as one input, it should complement factors such as team contribution, integrity records, and evidence of tangible work,” Meita explained.
She also emphasized the importance of transparency in the evaluation process. Employees need to clearly understand the assessment standards from the beginning, as well as the reasons behind their scores.
“At the end of the evaluation period, supervisors should be able to explain concretely why a team member receives a particular score. That way, the performance evaluation system will feel more fair and rational to employees,” she added.
The full video of the FEB UGM Podcast program titled “Fairness in Public Sector Performance Evaluation: Revealing the Dark Side of Management Control Systems” can be accessed at: MengungkapDarkSideManagementControlSystem
Author: Dwi Zhafirah Meiliani
Editor: Kurnia Ekaptiningrum
Sustainable Development Goals
