Page 147 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

improving future research and practice in performance appraisal 129
Dobbins and Russell (1986) use attributional theory in their explanation, suggesting that
when disliked individuals perform poorly, their behaviour is “in-character” and hence
attributed to factors internal to them. On the other hand, when liked subordinates per-
form below expectation, this is “out-of-character” and is attributed to external factors.
However, Lefkowitz (2000) identified a range of conceptual and methodological prob-
lems in studies on liking as an influence on PA. These include failure to take account
of the duration of the relationship and the lack of fidelity to organisational appraisal
systems (arising from the use of experimental research designs or studies carried out
specifically for research purposes). His conclusion is that it is not justified to assume
either that liking reflects bias or that it simply stems from a reaction to good performance.
The influence of liking on ratings, for whatever the underlying reasons, is less where
clear standards and observable performance information are available (Varma et al.,
1996).
It would certainly be understandable if managers had more positive reactions to-
wards subordinates whose performance was good—and who consequently helped the
manager’s position and produced fewer problems. This is the perspective taken by Hogan
and Shelton (1998), though they approach it from a rather different angle. They assert
that appraisal evaluations reflect supervisors’ judgements of Rewardingness, which is
described as the degree to which the appraisee meets or fulfils the boss’s expectations
regarding his or her performance. They cite the findings of Barrick and Mount (1991)
that scores on measures of Conscientiousness and of Emotional Stability predict ap-
praisal ratings and argue that this is because people who work hard, follow the rules,
stay in a good mood and act in a consistent manner are rewarding to work with. Fletcher
(1995) makes a similar point, based on findings that appraisees’ scores on the Optimism
scale of a personality inventory correlated with a wide range of appraisal ratings. Hogan
and Shelton also point out that rewardingness is not necessarily about meeting organ-
isational goals, it is primarily about meeting the boss’s goals, which links back to the
earlier discussion of appraiser motivation.

IMPROVING FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

The research described in the preceding section of this chapter has not sought to offer
a comprehensive review of every possible psychological factor that might impact on
those involved in the appraisal process. Rather, it has selected a number of variables that
seem to be of particular relevance in understanding people’s reactions to PA, some of
which have attracted a good deal of research, and attempted to illustrate the importance
of this more individually focused perspective on PA. There have been many studies done
on major research themes such as participation in appraisal or on aspects of appraisal
design. But while these tell us a lot about some of the general principles that relate
to successful PA, it seems likely that at the end of the day the largest determinant of
appraisal outcomes are the make-up and styles of the appraiser and appraisee, and the
existing relationship between them. It is thus essential that we improve our knowledge
of these factors and how they interact. This is likely to become even more imperative in
view of the increasingly international nature of business and the growing diversity in the
workforce. Kikoski (1999, p. 301), talking in an American context, observes that: