Page 146 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

128 appraisal: an individual psychological perspective
Much of the research done in this area was carried out some time ago, and initially em-
phasised the amount and quality of communication between appraiser and appraisee, and
the degree of similarity or congruence between them. On the first of these themes, Burke
and Wilcox (1969) found that greater openness in communication between manager and
subordinate was associated with higher satisfaction with the appraisal, with the job and
with the company. Fletcher (1978) found that the frequency with which the manager
and subordinate discussed work outside the appraisal situation was related to appraisal
outcomes. Thus, of appraisees who reported that they rarely or never discussed work
with their boss on a day-to-day basis, 26% said the appraisal led to increased job satisfac-
tion, 32% said it led to better performance, and 21% of the interviews resulted in some
kind of action recommendation being recorded; the equivalent figures for appraisees
who frequently or sometimes discussed work outside the appraisal were 52%, 61%
and 40%.
The research on similarity between appraiser and appraisee—including gender
match—as a predictor of appraisal outcomes had mixed success, but that which ex-
amined congruence of attitudes showed some positive findings. Wexley, Alexander,
Greenwalt, and Couch (1980) found that the more aware a manager was of subordinates’
work-related attitudes, the more positive were the evaluations they gave, and the more
congruent subordinates perceived the manager’s attitudes to be to their own, the more
satisfied they were with the supervision received. The authors conclude that seeing others
as they see themselves allows one to better understand and predict their behaviour, and
this is generally a rewarding experience. Although this was an experimental study, the
findings were replicated by Wexley and Pulakos (1983) who also found that the effect
was strongest in same-sex dyads.
Later work on appraiser–appraisee relationships has tended to focus on the overall
quality of the relationship and on liking or affect. Following on Beer’s (1981) suggestion
that such factors as trust and loyalty were likely to influence the extent to which important
issues were discussed in appraisal, Nathan, Mohrman, and Milliman (1991) measured the
quality of the relationship using a series of semantic differential scales. They found that,
evencontrollingforthefavourablenessofperformanceevaluations,appraiseereactionsto
the review process were significantly influenced by relationship quality. The implications
of the quality of relationship for the effectiveness of specific appraisal content and method
were examined by Klein and Snell (1994) in their study of 55 appraiser–appraisee dyads.
They found that criticism had a positive effect where the individuals appraised had a good
relationshipwiththeirlinemanager.Theyalsofoundthatgoalsettinghadagreaterimpact
on poor performers who reported a poor relationship with their supervisors.
Another way of viewing the appraiser–appraisee relationship is to focus on the de-
gree of liking between the two parties. Numerous investigations have been published
that address this, and Lefkowitz (2000) concluded from his review of 24 studies that
supervisors’ positive regard for subordinates is often found to relate to more lenient
appraisal ratings, greater halo effects, reduced accuracy, less inclination to punish poor
performance and—not surprisingly—better interpersonal relationships. The effect of lik-
ing has been observed even when ability or performance level has been controlled for
(e.g. Harris & Sackett, 1988). Varma, Denisi, and Peters (1996) pointed out that al-
though the effects of liking are well documented, the reasons for the influence of liking
are not clear. They interpreted the findings from their own study as indicating that rather
than affect being a biasing factor, it resulted from better performance in the first place.