Page 140 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

122 appraisal: an individual psychological perspective
staff for the rest of the year by tackling performance weaknesses in the AI. Perhaps
this is one of the reasons why Harris, Smith and Champagne (1995) found that ratings
given for administrative reasons were more lenient than those given solely for research
purposes. Similarly, in the context of multi-source feedback, ratings given as an input to
appraisal are more positive than those given simply as part of an individual development
exercise (McEvoy & Buller, 1987; Pollack & Pollack, 1996).
The extent to which managers are susceptible to these other influences on their as-
sessment of subordinates, their willingness to convey such assessments, and the manner
in which they do it are likely to be determined by various factors. These may include
their confidence in their own position, their relationship with the subordinate (dealt with
below), their attributional style and their personality. Greater confidence and sense of
security in one’s own position should facilitate greater openness and honesty with others,
but a lack of security may increase the temptation to indulge in manipulative strategies.
However, the latter may also to some degree reflect personality; Tziner et al. (1996)
found a correlation of .33 between Machiavellianism and a questionnaire measure of
political considerations in PA. Several other personality characteristics that seem rel-
evant here come under the general heading of the popular notion of emotional intelli-
gence, including, empathy, self-awareness, sensitivity to others, integrity, and emotional
resilience (Higgs & Dulewicz, 1999; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Although at the time of
writing no research has looked at the relationship between “EQ” and appraisal, it holds
some promise as a line of enquiry. The influence of attributional style on appraisal has
been examined over some years (e.g. Knowlton & Mitchell, 1980) and has been shown
to be susceptible to such factors as gender bias in appraisers. It will be discussed further
below.

THE APPRAISEE

Interestingly, more has been said about the reactions and attitudes of the person appraised
than about the appraising manager. Kikoski and Litterer (1983, p. 35) paint a rather lurid
picture of the emotional turmoil that an AI can be for the appraisee: “guilt, fear, pleasure,
regret and hope are only some of the emotions which are at work here. More than this,
one’s past performance is on display, one’s future may be on the table in a sort of ‘public
self disclosure’—one of the most powerful yet rarely-used personal interactions.”
They suggest that self-disclosure makes people more vulnerable. The theme of emo-
tional vulnerability is one which surfaces in numerous studies. For example, Kay
et al. (1965) found that criticism in the AI was threatening to the appraisee and led
to a poorer reaction, especially if the individual had low occupational self-esteem. How-
ever, the notion that all appraisees are going to react the same way to appraisal is as
unsafe as the proposition that appraisers are all going to adhere rigidly to the organi-
sation’s appraisal agenda and try to give an objective and accurate performance rating.
A number of papers on appraisal have advocated a contingency approach, with the AI
being tailored to the circumstances and make-up of the particular employee (Cummings
& Schwab, 1973; Cederblom, 1982; Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin, 1993; Klein &
Snell, 1994). Again, there are a number of personality and other attributes which might be
expected to influence an individual’s reactions to being appraised, including motivation,
self-awareness and self-esteem, locus of control and attributional style, and feedback
attitudes.