Page 135 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

research on performance appraisal 117
is influenced by Foucault (1981) and the result is a representation of PA as simply a
mechanism for, and expression of, management power and manipulation. There is indeed
some danger that in closely lining-up PA with business planning and organisational
mission statements, attention to individual psychological needs is reduced. However, as
will be seen in the main sections of this chapter, this kind of radical analysis reflects a
rather monothematic and overly-simple account. The reality of appraisal is that it acts
as a meeting point for a very diverse range of motives and actions of the organisation,
the appraisers and those appraised. No matter what the organisation’s aims might be,
little is likely to be achieved without considering the roles and attitudes of the people
who have to make appraisal work—the managers and their subordinates. As the research
reviewed below indicates, failure to do so makes PA less effective as a vehicle for
motivating performance improvement.
Many of the practical and process aspects of PA are dealt with in the chapter by
Drewes and Runde in this volume. The present chapter, however, is concerned with an
academic perspective on PA, and specifically with a psychological analysis of the role
of motivation, personality and interpersonal relationships in appraisal. First, though, it
is important to present a brief overview of research on PA.

RESEARCH ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

PA is one of the more heavily researched topics in work psychology. However, much
of this effort has been directed first to studies of different types of rating scale and how
they should be used, and then—more recently—to seeking to understand the cognitive
processesunderlyingtheassessmentsmadebymanagersoftheirstaff(e.g.DeNisi,1997).
There are many excellent reviews of this literature (e.g. Landy & Farr, 1980; Austin &
Villanova, 1992; Arvey & Murphy, 1998). The vast majority of this particular research
stream has emanated from the USA, perhaps to some extent driven by the impact of
Equal Opportunities legislation there. It is difficult to find an equivalent stream of work in
Europe, but—as will be suggested below—this may be no great loss. The other dominant
research theme has been that stemming from organisational justice theory (Greenberg,
1986; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995). In relation to PA, this breaks down into the concepts
of Distributive Justice, which deals with the perceived fairness of assessment and reward,
and Procedural Justice, which deals with the perceived fairness of the process whereby
those assessment and reward decisions are arrived at (Greenberg, 1986). In particular,
a great deal of attention has been paid to subordinate participation level or “voice” in
the appraisal process; the general observation being that higher levels of participation
are more likely to lead to positive perceptions of procedurally-just appraisal (Cawley,
Keeping, & Levy, 1998).
There have been many insights generated by these streams of work, and they have
helped illuminate such questions as the effectiveness of various methods of training raters
(Woehr & Huffcutt, 1994). That said, the practical value of the research emphasis on
rating methods and the cognitive processes involved in using them has to be questioned.
Apartfromanythingelse,aftersomuchresearchoversomanyyears,onemightexpectthe
quality of assessment in appraisal by now to be well-nigh perfect. The reality is that there
is little or no evidence to suggest that appraisal ratings typically found in organisations
havesignificantlyimprovedintermsoftheir“accuracy”orotherpsychometricproperties.