Employee Performance

Appraisal System
Participation:
A Technique that Works
Gary E. Roberts

Performance appraisal is one of the most complex and controversial human

resource techniques. Participatory performance appraisal Is an essential and
proven attribute of an effective performance appraisal system. This article
summarizes the conceptual foundation for participation including its intrinsic
motivational value, the expansion of available information, and the opportunity to interject employee voice. The moderating role of goal setting and
feedback in enhancing participation effectiveness is outlined. The article
concludes with factors that attenuate the effectiveness of participation
including lack of training, absence of rater accountability strategies, and
organizational and supervisory resistance to honest subordinate feedback.

erformance appraisal is a controversial management tool searching for

answers to ubiquitous problems in system design and administration.' The
main objective of this paper is to succinctly summarize the key elements that
make employee performance appraisal participation an essential component of an
effective system. Genuine performance appraisal participation is a process that can
mitigate many of the dysfunctions of traditional performance appraisal systems as well
as engender a more "humane" and ethical human resource management decisionmaking process.2
Critics of performance appraisal present a number of compelling arguments
against its use. Anecdotal, empirical and personal experience demonstrates a multitude of problems with appraisal system practices. The main critiques are that individual performance appraisal assumes a false degree of measurement accuracy,
engenders dysfunctional employee conflict and competition, assigns an inordinate
amount of responsibility for poor performance to individual employees while undervaluing the importance of the overall work process, underemphasizes the importance
of the work group, and is often used as a managerial "Theory X" control device.3 Critics of performance appraisal argue that there is a dearth of valid research to substantiate the claims of supporters. Proponents of performance appraisal argue that many
of these negative effects of appraisal are remediable through the application of genuine employee participation. 4

Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

The overall utility of performance appraisal participation was clearly demonstrated in a recent meta-analysis of 27 studies.5Performance appraisal participation
was strongly associated with desirable appraisal-related outcomes such as higher levels of appraisal satisfaction and acceptance. 6Given its demonstrated efficacy what are
the conceptual underpinnings of participation's effectiveness?

Conceptual Foundation
The conceptual base supporting the efficacy of the participatory performance
appraisal framework centers upon its cognitive and affective benefits.? From a motivational standpoint, employee participation is a key element of intrinsic motivational
strategies that facilitate worker growth and development. Intrinsically motivating
employment entail's jobs that possess task significance, skill variety, task identity (a
clear work product), performance feedback and worker autonomy.8Employee participation is an effective tool for enhancing job-related autonomy, a necessary precondition for employee growth. Intrinsic motivational approaches clearly communicate
trust and confidence in employee abilities. A major moderating factor in the success
of participation is the employee's need for growth. Employees who are comfortable
with traditional authoritarian management approaches are not directly motivated by
increased input, but may value another important attribute of participatory appraisal,
employee voice.
Appraisal participation provides employees with voice into the appraisal process.
With the presence of employee participation, employees are empowered to rebut ratings, documentation or verbal feedback that they disagree with.9 If employees are confident in the fairness of the appraisal process, they are more likely to accept
performance ratings, even adverse ones, if they perceive a fair decision making
process .10
The third conceptual foundation derives from the assumption that employees
possess valid, unique and relevant performance information and insight that is
unavailable or unobservable by the rater. Thus, when employees participate in the
appraisal process, the quality and quantity of performance appraisal information
increases leading to a more accurate and valid rating.11
The fourth factor is that in a participatory appraisal system, the employee attains
"ownership" over the process and manifests ego involvement as the ratee manifests
a stake in the success of the system, enhancing employee acceptance.'2Employees
frequently set higher performance goals than management when they possess the
requisite level of autonomy, authority and resource support.13
The fifth element is that greater employee participation generates an atmosphere of cooperation and employee support, which encourages the development of
a coaching or counseling relationship, thereby reducing appraisal related tension,
defensive behavior and rater-ratee conflict.14

90

Public Personnel Management

Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Forms of Participation in the Appraisal Process

Comprehensive and effective participation within the performance appraisal process
consists of joint rater-ratee development of: 1) performance standards, 2) the rating
form, 3) employee self-appraisal, and 4) ratee participation in the interview.15 The
effectiveness of participation is moderated by two key processes, the amount and
quality of informal performance feedback and goal setting which focuses attention on
the future. Ideally all of the above elements are present to reinforce the attributes of
a participatory, empowered work culture. If one or more of these factors is missing,
the probability of an ineffectual performance appraisal system increases significantly.

Performance Standard Participation

Clear and specific standards of performance are major elements of a valid and reliable
performance appraisal system.16 The key is to develop standards that measure the
essential job duties and responsibilities utilizing a balance of process, outcome, and
individual and group-based performance standards. The development of reliable,
valid, fair and useful performance standards is enhanced by employee participation,
as workers possess requisite unique and essential information necessary for developing realistic standards.

Rating Form Participation

Employee participation in developing the rating form and appraisal procedures is the
logical extension of the development of performance standards. The rating form summarizes the formal operational definition of what the organization considers worthy
of formal appraisal. As such, it is important to gather employee input on the aspects
of performance formally appraised as well as the measurement scales provided. For
example, employees may prefer a pass/fail system if the focus is on global feedback
versus more detailed individualized assessments.17

Self Evaluation
Self-appraisals provide employees with the opportunity to systematically assess their
performance. Studies indicate that self appraisal increases employee preparation and
readiness for the appraisal interview, enhances overall satisfaction, increases perceived
appraisal fairness, and can reduce defensive behavior if used for developmental purposes.18Employees can self-evaluate by completing their own appraisal and presenting the draft for discussion with the manager or can review a draft of the manager's
appraisal. Managerial and employee ratings frequently do not agree, but in a participatory system the goal is not absolute agreement, but a process directed towards
achieving consensus over time. The self-appraisal process is improved significantly if
clear performance standards are used, the employees are experienced, and trust levels are high.19

Performance Appraisal

91

Performance Appraisal Interview Participation

Most of the appraisal research focuses on the influence of participation in the
appraisal interview. There is a large body of research stretching from the 60 s to the
90 s indicating that employee participation in the interview is associated with a variety of desirable appraisal related outcomes, including appraisal system fairness,
appraisal satisfaction, supervisory support, satisfaction with supervisors, appraisal system acceptance and greater employee acceptance of negative feedback.20
The performance appraisal process culminates with the appraisal rating. Performance appraisal ratings are the product of an ongoing series of rater-ratee interactions valued by employees both intrinsically and extrinsically. Intrinsic value derives
from the validation of the employee's performance efficacy, and extrinsic worth from
the linkage with external recognition and personnel decision making.21The performance appraisal interview seriously tests the skills of the rater, and if this function is
handled poorly, the benefits of an accurate appraisal can be lost and employee motivation reduced. A quality performance appraisal interview includes sensitivity to
employee needs for privacy and confidentiality, giving the employee undivided attention during the appraisal interview, reserving adequate time for a full discussion of the
issues, and both the supervisor and rater's being prepared.22 Conducting the performance appraisal interview in a perfunctory or rushed manner with numerous interruptions enhances employee perceptions of manipulation.23
A participatory appraisal interview style also entails a strong emphasis on
employee performance counseling. Participatory systems facilitate the discussion of
employee strengths and weaknesses in a positive context where the goal is to help
the employee improve his or her performance. Hence, participatory appraisal reinforces communication and analysis related to employee training needs, promotional
opportunities, and skills development.24A counseling approach facilitates the identification of discrepancies in rater-ratee perceptions, which if left unchallenged, can
lead to serious disagreement during the evaluation cycle.

Goal Setting and Feedback

An important set of appraisal moderators is goal setting and feedback. Goal setting is
a well established and empirically verified theory of motivation, but the majority of
goal setting research takes place in non-appraisal settings.25 Effective goal setting in
the appraisal process consists of performance goals that are specific, moderately difficult and accepted.26Effective goal setting is clearly associated with higher employee
performance and satisfaction.27Goal setting within performance appraisal has been
associated with greater appraisal satisfaction, higher job satisfaction, and increased
performance 2,5Goal setting's effectiveness derives from its ability to focus employee
effort and attention on the critical tasks at hand, enhancing employee persistence and
reducing the likelihood of being distracted.29 Goal setting is a powerful motivational
technique because both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction flows from goal achievement.30Goal setting focuses attention and effort on the future which can be changed

92

Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

versus the judgmental performance appraisal process's emphasis on past behavior,

which cannot be altered.
An effective appraisal process requires employee feedback. Appraisal systems
that provide formal feedback once a year are more likely to be feedback deficient.31
For an appraisal system to be maximally effective, there must be ongoing formal and
informal performance feedback.32 In essence, feedback is the "raw material" of
employee participation. Feedback is essential in gaining the maximum benefits from
goal setting.33 Without feedback, employees are unable to make adjustments in job
performance or receive positive reinforcement for effective job behavior.34Effective
performance feedback is timely, specific, behavioral in nature, and presented by a
credible source.35 Performance feedback is effective in changing employee work
behavior and enhances employee job satisfaction and performance.36

Role of Employee Acceptance

Research demonstrates that performance appraisal systems that exhibit higher levels
of participation are positively associated with elevated levels of employee and rater
acceptance, which is a critical intermediate variable in the generation of appraisal system satisfaction, motivation and productivity.37If employees and raters do not accept
the appraisal system, the system will be ineffective irrespective of its degree of technical soundness.38Lack of user acceptance engenders resistance and a reduction in
user motivation transforming the process into a paper "shuffling" exercise. If users
accept the system, supervisor motivation to produce an accurate performance assessment increases and ratees are more likely to accept organizational personnel decisions.39
Employees are more likely to accept the appraisal system if they understand the
performance measurement process, agree on the value orientation of the system (i.e.,
focus on quality over quantity) share a consensus with management on the performance standards used, possess confidence in the accuracy of performance measurement, and perceive an absence of rater bias.40Prior research indicates that employee
participation, goal setting and feedback enhance performance measurement accuracy and reduce the potential for rater bias as employees have a role in the administration of the performance measurement process.41Thus, when systems are
participatory, the rating process is more likely to be valid and produce information
that possesses utility and validity.
The fact that employee acceptance is a critical variable is not surprising. Empirical
and personal experience confirms that employee perceptions regarding a tool or practice colors their behavioral intentions and actual actions. If employees lack confidence
in the efficacy of the rater or the validity of the system, the appraisal process breaks
down. The key is the cultivation of employee acceptance, which is not an easy task.
The cultivation of high levels of employee acceptance is not accidental, however. The appraisal system cannot meet its primary goals if the manager is unskilled at
conducting the interview or fails to provide clear guidance and counseling. Participation, goal setting and feedback are critical for enhancing the accuracy and quality of
Performance Appraisal

93

performance standards and goals, facilitating a consensus/understanding on performance standards, and increasing commitment to goals and standards. Participation
enables the employee to offer opinions and rebut information that they disagree with.
Cultivating favorable levels of employee acceptance (an attitude) requires that
all-important aspects of the appraisal system be working properly. A single defect in
the appraisal process can impede employee support and confidence. For example, an
accurate and fairly administered appraisal system that measures inappropriate or
unimportant aspects of the job will engender user resistance (i.e., focusing on individual performance when the work group should be the unit of analysis). Hence,
there are many "veto points" in the operation of any performance appraisal system
that can reduce acceptance.

Factors the Reduce the Effectiveness of

Participation
There are several factors that reduce the effectiveness of participation. Participatory
systems function most effectively in an atmosphere of trust and open communication.
If employees perceive that they will be punished for disagreeing, providing negative
feedback, or making mistakes, open communication will be extinguished, mitigating
the positive influence of participation.42 Participation quickly becomes reduced to
"pseudo-participation" in which employee input is accepted only if it conforms to
organizational or managerial demands or preferences. The end result is a diminished
level of motivation and commitment as well as an increase in employee cynicism.
The second factor that attenuates the effectiveness of participation is unequal
employee treatment. If employees perceive bias or favoritism in managerial behavior,
it accelerates perceptions of inequity. Managers frequently engage in what is termed
"in-group" and "out-group" behavior in which employees who are liked and/or are
viewed as capable are supervised in a participatory fashion while employees who are
viewed unfavorably receive traditional, more authoritarian supervision.43The categorization of employees is frequently made with incomplete information leading to misclassification of employees. Managers need to continually question their beliefs
regarding worker motivation, ability and performance, especially poorly performing
employees. The key is to take a courtroom perspective, innocent until proven guilty,
which forces managers to search out and analyze all sources of information that may
provide explanatory, mitigating or extenuating factors on employee problems. This is
one of the essential goals of a participatory performance appraisal system.
A third impediment is the absence of rater training and support in conducting
participatory performance appraisal. The cultivation of participatory management
requires conceptual, affective, and experiential education. Managers should receive
extensive training in goal setting, setting performance standards, conducting interviews, providing feedback, counseling employees, managing conflict, and avoiding rating errors. In this training there should be a clear discussion of the ethical
implications, dilemmas and conflicts inherent in the appraisal process from the perspectives of the employee, the manager and the organization.
94

Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

A fourth barrier is the absence of rating system accountability. Organizational

accountability is enhanced if raters are assigned senior mentors who regularly review
the manager's administration of the performance appraisal process. Performance
appraisal management should be a formal component of the manager's rating. A related recommendation is the presence of subordinate appraisal to provide systematic
feedback on managerial behavior encompassing key administrative duties including
the operation of the appraisal process.44
A fifth barrier is the absence of systematic evaluation of performance appraisal
system participation effectiveness. Regular employee attitude surveys and focus
groups are useful as they provide aggregate employee data on the operation of the
appraisal system. Absent systematic evaluation, the organization cannot make databased adjustments to the appraisal system.

Conclusion
Participatory performance appraisal is an essential component of a fair and ethical
evaluation of an employee's performance. Governmental organizations manifest an
ethical obligation to perform this complex function in a fair and unbiased fashion
given performance appraisal's implications for employee career success, self-esteem
and mental health. Multifaceted employee participation entails meaningful input in
developing performance standards and the rating form, worker self-evaluation, and
two-way communication in the appraisal interview. When employees possess a meaningful role in the appraisal process, employee acceptance and satisfaction with the
appraisal process is strongly enhanced. Clearly, many variables contribute to dissatisfaction with performance appraisal systems, but failure to institute a participatory system will result in continued performance appraisal ineffectiveness.

Notes
L Thayer, F. (1987). "Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay Systems: The Disasters Multiply," Review of Public
Personnel Administration, volume 7, 36 53; Fox, C. J. (1991). "Employee Performance Appraisal: The
Keystone Made of Clay," In C. Ban & N. M. Riccucci (Eds.), Public Personnel Management: Current
Concerns-Puture Challenges. New York: Longman: Bowman, J. S. (1994), At last, an Alternative to
Performance Appraisal: Total Quality Management," Public Administration Review, volume 54, 129-136.
-

Roberts, G. E. (1992). "Linkages Between Performance Appraisal System Effectiveness and Rater and Ratee
Acceptance: Evidence from a Survey of Municipal Personnel Administrators," Review of Public Personnel
Administration, volume 12, 19-41.

Deming, W E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

3
4

Carroll, S. J, C. E. Schneier (1982). Performance and Review Systems: The Identification, Measurement,
Development of Performance in Organizations. Dallas: Scott, Foresman and Company; Bernardin, H. J.
and R. W Beatty (1984). Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human behavior at Work. Boston: Kent
Publishing Company; Murphy, K. R., and J. N. Cleveland (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal:
Social, Organizational and Goal-Based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cawley, B. D., L. M. Keeping and P E. Levy (1998). "Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and
Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Field Investigations,' journal of Applied Psychology, volume
83, 615-633

Performance Appraisal

95

6Cawley,
7Latham

Keeping and Levy, 1998,

G. P. and K. N. Wexley (1981), Increasing Productivity Through Performance Appraisal. Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley; Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Daley, D. (1992),

Performance

Appraisal in the Public Sector. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books

8 Hackman,

9 Folger,

R. and G. Oldham (1980). Work Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

R. (1987). "Distributive and Procedural Justice in the Workplace," Social Justice Research, volume 1,

143-159; Greenberg, J. (1987). "Using Diaries to Promote Procedural Justice in Performance Appraisals,"

Social Justice Research, volume 1, 219-234.

1

Folger, 1987.

" Roberts, 1992; Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work

attitudes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

12Dachler,

H. P and 13. Wilport, B. (1978). "Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in

Organizations: A Critical Analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 23, 1-39; Cotton, 1993.
13

Latham and Wexley, 1981.

14 Jordan, J. L. (1990). "Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Supervisors' 11aits," Psychological

Reports,

volume 66, 1337-1338; Daley, 1992; Tjosvold, D. and]. A. Hata) (1992). "Performance Appraisal of Managers:
Goal Interdependence, Ratings and Outcomes,"Journal of Social Psychology, volume 132, 629-639.
15Roberts,

1992; Williams, T. R. and P E. Levy (1992). "The Effects of Perceived System Knowledge on the

Agreement Between Self-Ratings and Supervisor Ratings," Personnel Psychology, volume 45, 835-37; Greller,
M. M. (1995, June). Iiirticipative appraisal reviews or participative managers doing reviews? Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Organization Behavior Division, Vancouver, BC;
Moussavi, F. and D. L. Ashbaugh (1995). "Perceptual Effects of Participative, Goal-Oriented Performance
Appraisal: A Field Study in Public Agencies," Puma/ of Public Administration Research and Theory,
volume 5, 331-343; Roberts, G. E. (1995). "Developmental Performance Appraisal in Municipal Government:
An Antidote for a Deadly Disease?," Review of Public Personnel Administration, volume 15, 17-43.
lb

Bernardin and Beatty, 1984.

17 Roberts,

G. E. (1996). AA Case Study in Performance Appraisal System Development: Lessons From a

Municipal Police Department," American Review of Public Administration, volume 26, 361-385.
18 Roberts,
19

1992,

Roberts, 1992.

28Roberts,

G. E. (1994). "Maximizing Performance Appraisal System Acceptance: Perspectives From Municipal

Government Personnel Administrators," Public Personnel Management, volume 23, 525-549; Cawley,
Keeping and Levy, 1998.
21Bernardin

and Beatty, 1984.

22 Ibid.
23
24

Ibid.
Nathan, B. R., A. M. Mohrman and J. F. Milliman (1991). "Interpersonal Relations as a Context for the Effects
of Appraisal Interviews on Performance and Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study," Academy of Management

Journal, volume 34, 352-369.

25 Locke,

E. A. and G. P Latham (1984). Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall; Moussavi and Ashbaugh, 1995.

26Locke,

E. A. and G. P Latham (1990). "Work Motivation: The High Performance Cycle," in U. Kleinbeck et al.

(Eds.), Work motivation (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

96

Public Personnel Management

Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

21Longenecker,

C. 0., J. A. Sca-zzero and T. T. Stansileld (1994). "Quality Improvement Through Team Goal
Setting, Feedback and Problem Solving," International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
volume 11, 45-52; Locke and Latham, 1990.

29

Dobbins, G. H., R. i.. Cardy and S. J. Platz-Vieno (1990). A Contingency Approach to Appraisal Satisfaction:
An Initial Investigation of the Joint Effects of Organizational Variables and Appraisal Characteristics," puma/
of Management, volume 16, 619-632; Pooyan, A. and B, Eberhardt (1989), "Correlates of Performance
Appraisal Satisfaction Among Supervisory and Nonsupervisory Employees,"journai of Business Research,
volume 19, 215-226.
Antoni, C. H. and J. Beckmann (1990). "An Action Control Conceptualization of Goal-Setting and Feedback
Effects," In Li. Kleinbeck et al. (Eds.), Work motivation (41-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,

30Locke

and Latham, 1990.

31Bernardin
32Latham
33Locke

and Beatty, 1984.

and Wesley, 1981.

and Latham, 1990.

34Latham,

G. P., T. R. Mitchell, T. R. and D. L. Dossett. (1978). `The Importance of Participative Goal Setting
and Anticipated Rewards on Goal Difficulty and Job Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, volume
63, 163-171.

35Ilgen,

D. R., C. D. Fisher and S. Taylor (1979). "Consequences of Individual Feedback on Behavior in

Organizations,"Journal of Applied Psychology, volume 64, 349-371; Ashford S, J. and L. L. Cummings
(1983). Feedback as an Individual Resource: Personal Strategies of Creating information. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, volume 31, 370-398.

30Longenecker,
37Roberts,

Scazzero and Stansfield, 1994,

1992; Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998.

38Carroll

and Schneier, 1982; Dailey, R. C., and D. J. Kirk, D. J. (1992), "Distributive and Procedural Justice as
Antecedents of Job Dissatisfaction and Intent to 'Turnover," Human Relations, volume 45, 305-317.

39Carroll

and Schneier; Folger, 1987; Harris, M. M. (1994). "Rater Motivation in the Performance Appraisal
Context: A Theoretical Framework,"Journal of Management, volume 20, 737-756.

-in

Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Roberts, 1995.

31Roberts,

1992.

M. G. ed. (1998). Creating high-pelfortitance government organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers

42Popovich,

43Roberts,

G. E. and T. Reed (1996). "PerfOrmance Appraisal Participation, Goal Setting and Feedback: The
Influence of Supervisory Style," Review of Public Personnel Administration, volume 16, 29-60.

Coggburni. D. (1998). "Subordinate Appraisals of Managers: Lessons From a State Agency," Review of
Public Personnel Adininistration, volutne 18, 68-79.

Performance Appraisal

97

Author
Gary E. Roberts

Associate Professor
Division of Public Administration
University of Memphis
431 Clement Hall
Memphis, TN 38152
(901) 678-5527
Gary E. Roberts is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at the University of

Memphis specializing in human resource management. Dr. Roberts' past work experience includes service in local government public safety research and rural development
planning. His major areas of research interest include organizational work-life benefit
practices, performance measurement and appraisal systems, and MPA curriculum design
and evaluation. Dr. Roberts has published extensively in public administration journals
including the American Review of Public Administration, Review of Pubic Personnel
Administration, the International Journal of Public Administration and Public Personnel
Management.

98

Public Personnel Management

Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Copyright 0 2003 EBSCO Publishing