Page 144 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

126 appraisal: an individual psychological perspective
want and seek more feedback than others. However, there are further differences in
the source of that feedback. Herold, Parsons, and Rensvold (1996) developed three
domain-specific measures of individual differences in what they refer to as feedback
propensities—internal propensity, internal ability and external propensity. The first of
these reflects self-reliance, a lack of trust in other people’s evaluations, and valuing
internal feedback. The second, internal ability, reflects the ability to self-assess, to know
what is required by way of performance and the ability to judge one’s progress towards
it—irrespective of preference for internal or externally generated feedback. External
propensity is a preference for, and greater trust in, performance feedback from outside
sources. Herold et al. (1996) found that internal ability was quite strongly related to
positive self-esteem (r-values of around .4 to .5) and also to N.Ach and self-assurance;
internal propensity showed a similar pattern. External propensity showed more or less the
reverse pattern and was negatively correlated with tolerance for ambiguity. It seems very
possible that differences in these three variables may have implications for reactions to
PA. Thus, those with high external propensity may value traditional top-down appraisal,
and possibly elements of 360-degree feedback, while those who are high on internal
propensity and internal ability will respond best where appraisal is initiated and led by
their self-assessment.
The genesis of self-awareness may lie in these feedback-seeking differences, but as in-
dicated by the work of Herold et al., there are some underlying personality factors at work
that may be relevant to both feedback attitudes and self-awareness. A number of studies
support this suggestion. Roush and Atwater (1992) found that introverts and sensing
types (as measured by the MBTI) had more accurate self-perceptions than those classi-
fied as other types. Nydegger (1975) found that individuals scoring highly on a cognitive
complexity measure made better use of feedback cues, and were less likely to inflate
their self-evaluations. Mabe and West (1982), in their meta-analysis of self-assessment,
reported that individuals higher in need for achievement and intelligence tend to pro-
vide more accurate self-evaluations. Fletcher and Baldry (2000) found that individuals
whose self-ratings were congruent with ratings made of them by their superiors were
more reserved, shrewd, open-minded, conscientious and careful, and serious-minded
as measured by the 16PF (note that some of these are also linked to the second-order
factor of Introversion). Presenting the reverse side of the coin, managers who did not see
themselves in the same way as their bosses were more outgoing, impulsive, forthright
and artless, conservative, and expedient. It is not difficult to see how such differences
could influence sensitivity to, and interpretation of, feedback from superiors, and hence
affect responses to PA.
Finally, in relation to feedback, it has frequently been observed that the credibility of
the source of the feedback is crucial to its acceptance (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979;
Taylor, Fisher, & Ilgen, 1984; Bastos & Fletcher, 1995). While in some ways this may
be viewed as an attribute of the appraiser, its perception resides in the appraisee. If ap-
praisees do not find the PA system a credible source of feedback, then their reaction
to it will be indifferent if not negative. Lack of perceived credibility may stem from
deficiencies in the rating instrument, inadequate observation of the individual’s perfor-
mance by the supervisor, procedural justice concerns, and doubts about the motivation
or other attributes of the appraiser (though these may in turn reflect the personality of
the appraisee—lack of objectivity, high aggression leading to low levels of interpersonal
trust, etc.).