Page 145 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

psychological variables impacting on appraisal 127
The personality and personality-related variables mentioned here as influencing ap-
praisee orientation to appraisal are not suggested as an exhaustive list, but they are
perhaps among the more prominent ones. It will be obvious from the above that they
are also interrelated. For example, internal vs. external locus is a fundamental element
in attributional style and is the cornerstone of the feedback attitudes identified by
Herold et al. (1996). Their Internal Ability factor links self-assessment ability with
N.Ach—identifiedby Mabeand West (1982) as a correlate of self-assessment accuracy—
and self-esteem, which has been noted above as being associated with self-evaluation
(Fahr & Dobbins, 1989). Herold et al.’s External Propensity factor was correlated with
low tolerance of ambiguity, which has an echo in some of the individual differences
mentioned earlier as correlating with high self-awareness or self-assessment accuracy,
namely cognitive complexity and open-mindedness. Phillips and Gully (1997) found
that both goal orientation and locus of control influenced self-efficacy, and that the latter
along with Need for Achievement influenced self-set goals.
As has been suggested, between them these variables have a considerable potential to
influence many core aspects of the AI:
Both N.Ach and self-efficacy will influence the appraisees’ preferences for the degree

of difficulty and challenge presented by the goals set—either those set by the appraiser
or by themselves.
Self-esteem and goal orientation seem to relate to preferences for amount and type of

feedback.
Self-awareness is likely to impact on reactions to feedback and to tolerance of negative

feedback.
Internality–externality differences affect choice of feedback source and perceptions

of source credibility, preferences for participation level and the degree of ambiguity
tolerated (i.e. amount of feedback).
N.Ach and internality–externality are likely to influence reward preferences.

Finally, because these personality variables are likely to impact on individuals’ reac-
tions to assessments made of them and the feedback conveyed as a result, they are also
likely to strongly influence perceptions of procedural justice. Any contingency approach
to conducting or (in research model terms) explaining appraisal should presumably take
account of them.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPRAISER AND APPRAISEE

While many of the attributes of appraiser and appraisee already mentioned are obvi-
ously relevant here in that they contribute to the relationship between both parties, some
research has specifically focused on the nature of the relationship and it is to this that
we now turn. A number of writers have highlighted this as a key factor in determining
appraisal outcomes. Beer (1981) suggested that there was “no substitute” for the quality
of the supervisor–subordinate relationship, and that without this being good no appraisal
system could be effective. Similarly, Kikoski and Litterer (1983) identified the quality
of the relationship as being a vital precondition for a successful appraisal interview.
They went on to point out that psychotherapy research shows how the quality of the
therapist–client relationship is more important, in terms of various criteria, than the
actual kind of therapeutic approach taken.