Page 139 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

psychological variables impacting on appraisal 121
Some of these goals support one another, such as (3) and (4), though managing those and
still achieving (1) and (5) is less straightforward. The appraisers may present a picture of
all their staff being good performers, but this has to be consistent with other information
about the performance of the unit and also has to be done in such a way as not to alienate
peers. The latter may react adversely if one of their colleagues presents their unit as
being unrealistically high in performance, not least because this might have implications
for the way any money available for performance-related pay is shared out.
Longenecker and his colleagues have specifically focused on the politics of appraisal in
a number of studies and articles (Longenecker, Gioia, & Sims, Jr., 1987; Longenecker &
Gioia, 1988; Longenecker, Liverpool, & Wilson, 1988; Longenecker, 1989; Gioia &
Longenecker, 1994). Among other things, this research identified the following reasons
why managers inflated their ratings of subordinates:
believing that accurate ratings would have a damaging effect on subordinate motivation

and performance
desire to improve the subordinate’s chances of getting a pay rise

a wish to avoid others outside the department seeing evidence of internal problems

and conflicts
preventing a permanent written record of poor performance coming into being which

might have longer-term implications for the subordinate
need to protect subordinates whose performance had suffered from the effects of

personal problems
wanting to reward subordinates who had put in a lot of effort even if the end result was

not so good
avoiding confrontation and potential conflict with “difficult” subordinates

aiming to promote out of the department subordinates who were disliked or problem

performers.
Though less frequently reported, some reasons for deliberately manipulating perfor-
mance assessments in a downward direction were also uncovered:
scaring people into performing better

punishing difficult or non-compliant subordinates

encouraging unwanted subordinates to leave

minimising the merit pay award(s)

complying with organisational restrictions on the number of higher ratings given.

The general observation from this research is that managers frequently allow their
appraisal of staff to be influenced by non-performance issues. Gioia and Longenecker
(1994) found that the higher an individual rose in an organisation, the more political the
appraisal process becomes.
One the themes picked out both by Cleveland and Murphy and by Longenecker is the
avoidance of conflict. This has been addressed many other times in the literature under the
guise of the effects of criticism or negative feedback on performance. Meyer et al. (1965)
were among the first to report the tendency for more than a small amount of criticism in
the appraisal interview to lead to lower motivation and achievement; although this has
not always been replicated, the reluctance of appraisers to give unfavourable feedback
has often been noted (Fletcher, 1994). The appraisal is usually an annual activity, and
many managers seem to be unwilling to risk the quality of their relationships with their