Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm
Evaluate
Managers’ motivation to evaluate subordinate
subordinate performance performance
Sylvie St-Onge
Department of Management, HEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada 273
Denis Morin
Department of Management and Human Resources,
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montreal, Canada, and
Mario Bellehumeur and Francine Dupuis
HEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to focus on one of the most frequently cited problems with respect to the
performance management process: the prevalence of performance appraisal distortion.
Design/methodology/approach – Through semi-structured interviews with managers, this paper
attempts to answer the following question: Which factors influence managers’ motivation to distort the
performance evaluation ratings of their subordinates?
Findings – This paper offers three main contributions or implications. First, from a methodological
point of view, using a qualitative research design to investigate the appraisal of subordinates’
performance is useful because it allows us to reduce the gap between research and practice. Second,
this study shows that researchers must embrace or integrate various theoretical perspectives (rational,
affective, political, strategic, cultural, justice, and symbolic), given that managers’ motivation to
evaluate subordinate performance cannot be analyzed outside of the social context. Third, from a
practical point of view, managers’ motivation to evaluate subordinate performance is less about the
technique used and more about leadership support, execution, and overall performance culture.
Originality/value – To date, prior research has focused on improving performance appraisal
accuracy through experimental research design by emphasizing rating criteria, rater errors, rater
training, and the various rating methods. Despite extensive research, very little progress has been
made toward improving rater accuracy.
Keywords Motivation (psychology), Performance appraisal, Performance management, Managers
Paper type Research paper
Dissatisfaction with performance management has been around for many years (Bretz
et al., 1992). A survey of 50,000 respondents reveals that only 13 percent of employees
and supervisors and only 6 percent of executives consider their firm’s performance
appraisal process useful (People IQ, 2005). Another survey shows that almost
50 percent of executives consider their performance appraisal process to be “more or
less” effective, while 15 percent consider it “little to not” effective at all (Mercer, 2002).
Similarly, a recent survey indicates that close to 60 percent of the participants rate their
organization a “C” or worse on the effectiveness of their performance management
Qualitative Research in Organizations
(WorldatWork and Sibson Consulting, 2007). and Management: An International
This paper focuses on one of the most frequently cited problems in the performance Journal
Vol. 4 No. 3, 2009
management process: the prevalence of performance rating distortion (Bernardin and pp. 273-293
Villanova, 1986; Bretz et al., 1992; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). So far, most prior q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648
research has focused on ways to reduce inaccuracy in performance ratings. DOI 10.1108/17465640911002545
QROM These approaches usually include evaluation forms which provide an exhaustive
4,3 description of the behaviours to observe and evaluate. They also include training
programs intended to improve raters’ skills with regards to accumulating, coding and
integrating performance-related information. Despite extensive research into these
issues, there has been very little progress toward improving rater accuracy (Ilgen et al.,
1993; Maroney and Buckley, 1992; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). In contrast, Newman
274 et al. (2004) conclude that, despite 30 years of research, no evidence substantiates the
underlying hypothesis or belief that the reliability and accuracy of appraisal ratings
depends upon which rating format is used. In fact, the choice of a performance appraisal
format has only a minor effect on the accuracy of performance ratings (Borman, 1991;
Bretz et al., 1992; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). Spencer and Keeping (2005) also criticize the
research that focuses on rater ability and comprehension of the cognitive processes
underlying rating behaviour for not having contributed much toward solving problems
of rating distortion and leniency in practice. Finally, all efforts to train raters are usually
disappointing, as the effects of rater training on appraisal accuracy dissipate over time
(Cleveland and Murphy, 1992; Latham, 1986, 1988).
Many researchers agree that on the whole, prior research fails to pay attention to rater
motivation and the organizational context in which appraisals occur (Dipboye, 1985;
Murphy and Cleveland, 1995; Wood and Marshall, 2008). This study attempts to
overcome this limitation by investigating behavioural, social and affective components
in order to get a more realistic picture of the context surrounding the performance
appraisal process. More precisely, this study addresses the following research question:
Which contextual characteristics influence managers’ motivation to distort the
performance evaluation ratings of their subordinates? Acquiring a better understanding
of manager motivation to accurately evaluate their subordinates is quite important,
given that top managers invest considerable financial, material, and human resources
when developing and managing their performance appraisal system and training their
managers with respect to it. Moreover, many authors have called for more research on
the rating context and rater motivation determinants on rating outcomes (Levy and
Williams, 2004; Spencer and Keeping, 2005; Tziner et al., 2005). The absence of field
research on voluntary distortion of performance ratings may be explained by the fact it
is difficult to enlist the cooperation of managers on a topic associated with an
organizational sanction or one potentially biased by a social desirability factor (Morin
et al., 1999).
Methods
This field study innovates by adopting an interview-based qualitative approach when
examining managers’ discourse related to the performance appraisal process. In our
study, we conducted in-depth interviews with a subsample of 15 out of 85 students
enrolled in an MBA program at a North American university who had completed a
questionnaire on performance management. This subsample was composed of members
of the two extreme groups who claimed to be either not at all motivated or very
motivated in conducting employee performance appraisals. This subsample of
15 students who express two opposite attitudes toward performance appraisals
constitutes one of the strengths of our study in that the aim was to analyze their
determinants. Given the explanatory nature of this study, the number of 15 participants
appears sufficient to analyze the variety of perceptions. Moreover, the fact that the
participants work for different companies and were interviewed outside their workplace Evaluate
encouraged frankness and openness while reducing the risk of bias related to social subordinate
desirability.
It is important to observe that all respondents had at least two years of experience in a performance
managerial position in which they had evaluated the performance of at least one
employee. With a median age of 34, the managers had, on average, six years of
experience in their organization, including three years in their current job position. 275
Typically, participants supervised five employees and had conducted performance
evaluations for four years. Of the 15 participating managers, six were male and nine
were female respondents and they worked for organizations of various sizes: two
worked in organizations with between one and 99 employees, three in companies with
between 100 and 249 employees, two in firms with between 250 and 999 employees and,
finally, eight in companies with over 1,000 employees.
Each semi-structured interview (with participants) lasted an average of one hour
and was tape-recorded for future transcription. The interviews focused on factors
affecting participant motivation and the motivation of other managers to evaluate their
subordinates’ performance. The interviews also addressed matters of motivation:
What could be done to increase or decrease their own motivation or that of their
colleagues in order to carefully evaluate their subordinates’ performance?
All interview transcripts were subjected to a systematic ethnographic content
analysis (using ETHNOGRAPHtm software) to assist us in organizing, searching, and
sorting coded data. Ethnographic content analysis is characterized by the reflective
and interactive nature of the investigator, concepts, data collection, and analysis.
While variables, established prior to the analysis and compiled and categorized by the
researchers merely guide the study, other categories were expected to emerge from the
data (Altheide, 1987; Manning and Cullum-Swan, 1994). Data was analyzed using a
process of “reduction” and “interpretation.” Text lines from each interview were
numbered and two co-researchers independently reviewed all transcripts.
Transcripts were then identified and split into segments representing topic-units.
Concurrently, these co-researchers also identified each segment with appropriate
“established” or “emerging” codes. Once the initial coding task was completed, all
segments of text addressing the same topic were grouped and labelled by a key word
or expression that captured the underlying issue. Such labelling was based on a
consensus agreement among the researchers. For each quote, the code and line number
were then entered into ETHNOGRAPHe. Moreover, categories, and links between
and among particular concepts were identified in the analysis (Silverman, 1993;
Tesch, 1993).
Psychometric perspective
As shown in Table I, a psychometric perspective presumes performance appraisal is a
rational, neutral, and passive process whereby managers seek to objectively measure
the performance of their subordinates. According to this perspective, if there is bias or
errors in performance ratings, it is mainly because supervisors are either not trained to
allocate them or do not have the appropriate appraisal tools. A psychometric
perspective insists on training and methods. In our study, many managers’ remarks
reflect this perspective.
For example, several participants claim that the lack of competencies and
interpersonal relations skills – mostly in terms of giving negative feedback –
decreases supervisors’ motivation to evaluate their subordinates’ performance. As one
manager put it:
It’s surprising we are not taught how to evaluate well [. . .] they were not given the tools to do
it properly. It is important to [. . .] choose your words properly when you evaluate someone.
There are many ways to tell someone that they are rotten, that there is room for improvement.
Similarly, another said:
You have to find the right way to say things. As much as possible, you shouldn’t avoid
problems out of fear of hurting the other person, but rather find a way to broach the problem.
Clearly, there is no problem communicating good and fine things or talking about people’s
good sides. Talking about bad aspects creates problems even though it is important to talk
about it and you have to take the time to find words to say it.
In addition, many participants consider performance evaluation forms and methods to
be a source of frustration because of their length, irrelevance, the redundancy of certain
criteria, etc. Several managers believe that the performance evaluation method to be Evaluate
too heavy or too complex and that it leads to errors, bias and manipulation of subordinate
performance ratings. For example, one manager said:
performance
It is difficult to complete a three-page form where you have to evaluate [performance] relative
to objectives that should have been specified. Planning work objectives for the following year
and completing another form that covers the development plan of the employee for the next
12 months, not to mention that you need to follow up this exercise in mid-year, is far too 279
demanding. The system is bloated.
Similarly, another participant said:
The performance evaluation form is almost 30 pages long. It asks the same questions for all
employees, regardless of their duties or position. The form is unsatisfactory [. . .] For example,
they talk about dress code, appearance, stuff that shocked people very much.
Participants seem to prefer a method based on the determination of performance
objectives or on the observation of critical incidents, which permits them to compile
information on employee performance easily and regularly throughout the year. As
expressed by one manager: “I find it motivating to use the famous loose-leaf sheets on
which you can regularly jot down something and put it in the employee’s file.” Finally,
some managers complained about the fact that they are forced to play with their
ratings to satisfy a particular predetermined distribution:
It bothers me to have to allocate our employees. [. . .] I have 20 employees and a chart with
25 squares. My employees have to cluster in the four squares in the centre for the average
rating to be good.
Affective perspective
As summarized in Table I, according to this perspective, affective and emotional
factors cannot be ignored because they affect performance rating accuracy (Cardy and
Dobbins, 1986; Lefkowitz, 2000; Tsui and Barry, 1986; Judge and Ferris, 1993). For
example, the “supervisor-subordinate” exchange theory postulates that the supervisor
develops distinct work relations with each subordinate; each “supervisor-subordinate”
dyad corresponds to an interpersonal interaction style likely to influence performance
rating accuracy (Liden and Graen, 1980).
In this study, one manager had this to say:
When an employee is good, he will be liked a little better for sure, and it is more motivating to
evaluate him. You tend to put this employee on a pedestal. I try to control it but I can’t say
that it doesn’t influence me.
It also seems more difficult to give negative feedback or even to intervene in cases
where employees have personal problems and managers might be more likely to avoid
them. In such a case, as one manager put it: “[. . .] it is difficult to sit down face to face
with an employee and deal with the tears, personal problems, and with all the little
family squabbles [. . .].” Another said:
At times, I had to give extremely negative feedback that could have encouraged me not to be
as open. However, if you look at the long-term results, I think it’s preferable to lance the boil.
I don’t want the problem to fester, I prefer to tackle it immediately and give a lot of
feedback [. . .]
QROM Many of the managers confirm that supervisors’ feelings towards their subordinates
4,3 invariably influence the evaluation ratings: the better the quality of the
supervisor-subordinate relationship, the higher the performance rating given to the
target employee. For example, as one participant reported:
Some people have become my friends and it is not much fun to tell them: “Listen, what you
are doing annoys me. This has to change or we’ll have to do something about it.” These
280 things are very emotional. It is difficult to be rational in performance evaluations.
Inversely, a conflictual relationship might prompt undervaluation of the performance
ratings. As one manager asserted:
When you have been working in a company for a while, there are games that are played and
some people are antagonistic towards you because they have given you low blows for years.
You are then less inclined to try to help them.
Political perspective
As summarized in Table I, the political perspective implies that the employee
performance appraisal process is a deliberate attempt by managers to satisfy either
their personal interests or goals or those of their department and/or subordinates
(Cleveland and Murphy, 1992; Harris, 1994; Longenecker et al., 1987; Murphy and
Cleveland, 1995; Murphy et al., 2004; Wong and Kwong, 2007).
In our study, manager discourse confirms the important role of the rater’s objectives
in the performance evaluation process. These objectives can be oriented toward
maintaining or improving subordinate motivation and performance, maintaining a
good work climate, safeguarding subordinates’ interests or attaining personal goals
and retaining and expelling employees.
For example, all respondents say they strive to maintain or increase their
subordinates’ motivation at work when evaluating their performance. One manager
said: “I like saying to someone: ‘You are doing a good job [. . .].’ I prefer to be diplomatic. I
try in particular to avoid sapping an employee’s motivation.” Many managers report
that this objective can lead them to overvalue ratings issued to their subordinates by
emphasizing the positive aspects of their performance, maximizing rewards or
considering employee progress. As expressed by one respondent:
The annual evaluation reflects a complete year. But if you met the employee six months ago
to discuss a problem and he then solved it by correcting his behaviour or attitude [. . .] At the
end of the year managers do not want to return to the subject and report again on the first few
months that were not very good.
Analyses of manager interviews also reveal that their quest to maintain or improve the
quality of working relations within their team may influence performance appraisal.
Some supervisors say they find it difficult to distinguish between professional and
personal relations. For example, managers who maintain good relations with employees
report that they are less inclined to evaluate and provide feedback on their performance.
Some supervisors even try to defend the interests of their subordinates when
evaluating their performance. In other words, they try to optimize the rewards for
employees or minimize the negative consequences of the appraisal. As one of the
managers put it: “We are ready to tell them verbally, but we won’t write bad things
because we know it will be inserted in the file.” The desire to maximize rewards,
particularly salary increases, also justifies managers’ overvaluation of their employees’ Evaluate
performance ratings. One manager pointed out how the allocation of bonuses can lead subordinate
them to be inaccurate:
performance
There are performance bonuses, but they are limited and cannot be given to everyone.
Relative to the group average, one person may stand out, but as there are many groups on
the evaluation board, the best person in a group may not be the best when you compare
that person to the overall average. All the managers then try to put their employees first 281
and it becomes a real exercise in confrontation, combined with an auction or a slave
market.
Another respondent painted a similar picture with regard to the merit pay
environment:
[. . .] when we evaluate employees and we find them good, we will weigh our words carefully
before giving them a lower rating [. . .]. We don’t want this to penalize the employee when it’s
time for a raise. As salaries are low, the employee needs an increase.
Some respondents report that they take into account the impact their performance
evaluations have on their own image with top managers. In their view, executives tend
to see the performance ratings they allocate to their subordinates as a reflection of their
own performance as a manager. As one participant claimed:
Some managers have the impression that it’s their job that is seen through the evaluations
they give. They are afraid to show that they are unable to manage their personnel or to show
that something is going wrong with their personnel.
Therefore, they have an incentive to give good ratings if they want to be perceived as
good leaders who are deserving of promotions and/or pay incentives. According to one
manager:
As a manager of a group of very efficient people, my evaluation should be good and my
reputation should be good. If my group performs better, I can improve my chances of getting
a promotion.
Finally, according to some respondents, the desire to keep good performers within the
department by overvaluing their performance and to encourage problem employees to
leave by undervaluing their appraisals can also explain rating distortion. As one
respondent explained:
I don’t want to lose the good employees. And if they do good work, I will not deliberately
depict them as a superstar so that I won’t lose them. On the other hand, at times I have wanted
to get rid of an employee so I gave someone a better evaluation so they would move to another
group, and I could pass my problem along to another manager.
282 Participants also emphasized the impact multiple transformations and corporate
reorganization have on their motivation to evaluate employees and on the time they
have to evaluate an increasing number of subordinates. For example, mergers and
acquisitions may have a negative impact on the accuracy of performance appraisals:
There were problems of integration following a merger three or four years ago [. . .] I recognize
the people that were there before the merger [. . .] Although I ask them to do the same thing as
the others, I will probably be slightly more tolerant.
Moreover, when managers are required to supervise an increasing number of employees
due to successive downsizings of hierarchical levels, it becomes a real challenge for them
to find the time to appraise their employees’ individual performances with sufficient
care. As one manager explained: “With the levelling of structures, managers must
manage more employees, files, and operations. [. . .] Managers have less time to manage
their personnel and they follow up less often.” Another participant expressed a similar
opinion:
[. . .] with downsizing, supervisors have many responsibilities to bear, and making a good
performance evaluation takes time. In times of crisis and reorganization, it is difficult to ask
people to invest themselves in their evaluations.
According to the respondents, the more importance top executives place on personnel
management, the more they provide concrete support for performance management
processes and the more clearly they communicate the business objectives, the more
managers are motivated to evaluate the performance of their subordinates. From a
manager’s point of view:
Here, supervisors are motivated to do employee performance evaluations well because they
have a lot to gain. [. . .] They try to have an open-door management style and transparency.
Executives meet with employees periodically to explain to them why they have made such
and such a decision.
Another respondent offered the opposite perspective:
One year ago, they tried to implement a performance evaluation system but it didn’t work
because the owners did not see the need for it. [. . .] We didn’t have the support of top
management.
Moreover, the hierarchical supervisor acts as a role model and has a predominant effect
on a manager’s motivation to evaluate. As expressed by one participant: “ Most of my
colleagues do not pay attention to performance evaluations. My supervisor does not
even evaluate my own performance. There’s a type of ‘I don’t care’ culture.” Similarly,
another respondent said:
If several managers report to you, you have to begin by evaluating the performance of your
own managers before conveying to them that it is important to evaluate their employees’
performance.
Procedural justice perspective Evaluate
As described in Table I, this perspective asserts that a performance appraisal process subordinate
should value employees and aim to treat them with dignity and fairness (Folger et al., 1992).
In our study, many respondents seemed more concerned about whether the ratings performance
were accepted and perceived as accurate and fair, as opposed to solely worrying about
their accuracy. Some managers believe that clear and predetermined criteria are important
in order not only to be fair, but also to facilitate the performance evaluation task: 283
If your objectives are clearly determined and accurate, this reduces subjectivity. [. . .] You are
able to say to someone “look what you’re doing” or “look what you did,” and to tell them
whether they did it at 75 percent or at 125 percent. “It makes our work much easier. The
criterion is already clearly defined. There is an appendix to the form that defines and gives
examples of each criterion.”
Overall, participants believe it is more equitable to give evaluations on an ongoing
basis. As one participant said:
You have to perform evaluations regularly or at least a few times during the year [. . .] not just
at the end of the year. If you need to realign, it gives the employee a chance to change some
habits or improve in certain areas to achieve results.
In addition, it seems that participation in the development and implementation of the
performance appraisal system motivates managers to rate performance. This approach
allows managers to better assume their role as rater and coach; appraisal accuracy
should improve accordingly. As one manager put it:
I find it very frustrating when I have to apply a performance management system that was
developed without my input and that is totally unrelated or irrelevant to the reality that I have to
manage.
References
Altheide, D.L. (1987), “Ethnographic content analysis”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 10, pp. 65-77.
Banks, C.G. and Murphy, K.R. (1985), “Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in
performance appraisal”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 335-45.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, Garden City, NJ.
Bernardin, H.J. and Villanova, P. (1986), “Performance appraisal”, in Locke, E.A. (Ed.),
Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings, Lexington Books, Lexington, pp. 43-62.
Borman, W.C. (1991), “Job behavior, performance and effectiveness”, in Dunnette, M.D. and
Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2,
Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 271-326.
Bretz, R., Milkovich, G.T. and Read, W.H. (1992), “The current state of performance appraisal
research and practice: concerns, directions and implications”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 18, pp. 111-37.
Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1986), “Affect and appraisal accuracy: liking as an integral
dimension in evaluating performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 672-8.
Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives,
South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Cleveland, J.N. and Murphy, K.R. (1992), “Analyzing performance appraisal as goal directed
behaviour”, in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 121-85.
DeNisi, A.S. (1996), Cognitive Approach to Performance Appraisal: A Program of Research,
Routledge, New York, NY.
DeNisi, A.S. and Gonzalez, J.A. (2004), “Design performance appraisal systems to improve
performance”, in Locke, E.E. (Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior,
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 60-72.
Dipboye, R.L. (1985), “Some neglected variables in research on discrimination in appraisals”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 116-27, 147.
Farr, J.L. and Jacobs, R. (2006), “Trust us: new perspectives on performance appraisal”,
in Bennett, W., Lance, C.E. and Woehr, D.J. (Eds), Performance Measurement: Current
Perspectives and Future Challenges, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 321-37.
Farr, J.L. and Levy, P.E. (2007), “Perfomance appraisal”, in Koppes, L.L. (Ed.), Historical
Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 311-27.
Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1992), “A due process metaphor for performance Evaluate
appraisal”, in Cummings, L. and Staw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 14, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 129-77. subordinate
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D. and Benetka, G. (2008), “Quantitative and qualitative research: beyond performance
the debate”, Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, Vol. 42, pp. 266-90.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity
Press, Cambridge, MA. 291
Harris, M.M. (1994), “Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: a theoretical
framework”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 737-56.
Ilgen, D.R., Barnes-Farrell, J.L. and McKellin, D.B. (1993), “Performance appraisal process
research in the 1980s: what has it contributed to appraisal in use?”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 54, pp. 321-68.
Johns, G. (2006), “The essential impact of context on organizational behaviour”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31, pp. 386-408.
Judge, T.A. and Ferris, G.R. (1993), “Social context of performance evaluation decisions”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 80-105.
Kellough, J.E. and Lu, H. (1993), “The paradox of merit pay in the public sector: persistence of a
problematic procedure”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 13, pp. 45-65.
Kochanski, J. and Becom, A. (2008), “Four key steps to performance management”, Workspan,
February, pp. 33-6.
Latham, G.P. (1986), “Job performance and appraisal”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Wiley, Chichester,
pp. 117-53.
Latham, G.P. (1988), “Human resource training and development”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 39, pp. 545-82.
Lefkowitz, J. (2000), “The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance
ratings: a literature review and proposed causal model”, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 67-85.
Levy, P.E. and Williams, J.R. (2004), “The social context of performance appraisal: a review and
framework for the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30, pp. 881-905.
Liden, R.C. and Graen, G. (1980), “Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 451-65.
Lindlof, T.R. (1995), Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA.
Longenecker, C.O., Sims, H.P. and Gioia, D.A. (1987), “Behind the mask: the politics of employee
appraisal”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1, pp. 183-93.
Madill, A. and Gough, B. (2008), “Qualitative research and its place in psychological science”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 254-71.
Manning, P.K. and Cullum-Swan, B. (1994), “Narrative, content and semiotic analysis”, in Denzin, N.K.
and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 463-78.
Marchel, C. and Owens, S. (2007), “Qualitative research in psychology: could William James get a
job?”, History of Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 301-24.
Maroney, B.P. and Buckley, M.R. (1992), “Does research in performance appraisal influence the
practice of performance appraisal? Regretfully not!”, Public Personnel Management
Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 185-95.
Mercer (2002), Effective Performance Management Practices, Mercer Human Resource
Consulting, New York, NY.
QROM Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-63.
4,3
Morin, D., Murphy, K.R. and Larocque, A. (1999), “The relationship between performance
appraisal context and rating inflation”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 45,
pp. 694-726.
Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,
292 Organizational and Goal-based Perspectives, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Murphy, K.R., Cleveland, J.N., Skattebo, A.L. and Kinney, T.B. (2004), “Raters who pursue
different goals give different ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 158-64.
Napier, N.K. and Latham, G.P. (1986), “Outcome expectancies of people who conduct
performance appraisals”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 827-37.
Newman, D.A., Kinney, T. and Farr, J.L. (2004), “Job performance ratings”, in Thomas, J.C. (Ed.),
Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Industrial and Organizational
Assessment, Vol. 4, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 373-89.
People IQ (2005), “Study: performance appraisals are damaging HR’s reputation”, available at:
www.peopleiq.com/hot_news.html
Pfeffer, J. (1981), “Management as symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of
organizational paradigm”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 1-52.
Poon, J.M.L. (2004), “Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover
intention”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33, pp. 322-34.
Rennie, D., Watson, K. and Monteiro, A. (2002), “The rise of qualitative research in psychology”,
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 179-89.
Schneier, C.E., Shaw, D.G. and Beatty, R.W. (1991), “Performance measurement and
management: a tool for strategy execution”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 30,
pp. 279-301.
Silverman, D. (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Spencer, J.R. and Keeping, L.M. (2005), “Construct confusion? A qualitative review of the
influence of conscious rating distortion”, paper presented at the Meeting of the
Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, June, Toronto, Ontario.
Staw, B.M. (1980), “Rationality and justification in organizational life”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 45-80.
Tesch, R. (1993), “Software for qualitative researchers: analysis needs and program capabilities”,
in Fielding, N.G. and Lee, R.M. (Eds), Using Computers in Qualitative Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 16-37.
Tsui, A.S. and Barry, B. (1986), “Interpersonal affect and rating errors”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 586-99.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (2005), “Contextual factors affecting rating
behaviour”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30, pp. 89-98.
Villanova, P. and Bernardin, H.J. (1989), “Impression management in the context of performance
appraisal”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Rozenfeld, P. (Eds), Impression Management in the
Organization, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 299-313.
Weick, K.E. (1979), “Cognitive processes in organizational symbolism”, Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 1, pp. 101-15.
Wong, K.F.E. and Kwong, J.Y.Y. (2007), “Effects of rater goals on rating patterns: evidence from
an experimental field study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 577-85.
Wood, R.E. and Marshall, V. (2008), “Accuracy and effectiveness in appraisal outcomes: the Evaluate
influence of self-efficacy, personal factors and organisational variables”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 295-313. subordinate
WorldatWork and Sibson Consulting (2007), The State of Performance Management, a survey performance
brief, Sibson Consulting, Princeton, NJ, July, p. 5.