0000 - Performance Apprasial Roberts 2003

Employee Performance Appraisal System Participation: A Technique that Works Gary E. Roberts

Performance appraisal is one of the most complex and controversial human resource techniques. Participatory performance appraisal Is an essential and proven attribute of an effective performance appraisal system. This article summarizes the conceptual foundation for participation including its intrinsic motivational value, the expansion of available information, and the opportu-nity to interject employee voice. The moderating role of goal setting and feedback in enhancing participation effectiveness is outlined. The article concludes with factors that attenuate the effectiveness of participation including lack of training, absence of rater accountability strategies, and organizational and supervisory resistance to honest subordinate feedback.

performance appraisal is a controversial management tool searching for answers to ubiquitous problems in system design and administration.' The

main objective of this paper is to succinctly summarize the key elements that make employee performance appraisal participation an essential component of an effective system. Genuine performance appraisal participation is a process that can

mitigate many of the dysfunctions of traditional performance appraisal systems as well as engender a more "humane" and ethical human resource management decision-

making process.2 Critics of performance appraisal present a number of compelling arguments

against its use. Anecdotal, empirical and personal experience demonstrates a multi-tude of problems with appraisal system practices. The main critiques are that indi-vidual performance appraisal assumes a false degree of measurement accuracy,

engenders dysfunctional employee conflict and competition, assigns an inordinate

amount of responsibility for poor performance to individual employees while under-

valuing the importance of the overall work process, underemphasizes the importance of the work group, and is often used as a managerial "Theory X" control device.3 Crit-ics of performance appraisal argue that there is a dearth of valid research to substan-tiate the claims of supporters. Proponents of performance appraisal argue that many

of these negative effects of appraisal are remediable through the application of gen-uine employee participation. 4

Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

The overall utility of performance appraisal participation was clearly demon-strated in a recent meta-analysis of 27 studies.5 Performance appraisal participation was strongly associated with desirable appraisal-related outcomes such as higher lev-els of appraisal satisfaction and acceptance. 6 Given its demonstrated efficacy what are the conceptual underpinnings of participation's effectiveness?

Conceptual Foundation

The conceptual base supporting the efficacy of the participatory performance appraisal framework centers upon its cognitive and affective benefits.? From a moti-vational standpoint, employee participation is a key element of intrinsic motivational strategies that facilitate worker growth and development. Intrinsically motivating employment entail' s jobs that possess task significance, skill variety, task identity (a clear work product), performance feedback and worker autonomy.8 Employee partic-ipation is an effective tool for enhancing job-related autonomy, a necessary precondi-tion for employee growth. Intrinsic motivational approaches clearly communicate trust and confidence in employee abilities. A major moderating factor in the success of participation is the employee's need for growth. Employees who are comfortable with traditional authoritarian management approaches are not directly motivated by increased input, but may value another important attribute of participatory appraisal, employee voice.

Appraisal participation provides employees with voice into the appraisal process. With the presence of employee participation, employees are empowered to rebut rat-ings, documentation or verbal feedback that they disagree with.9 If employees are con-fident in the fairness of the appraisal process, they are more likely to accept performance ratings, even adverse ones, if they perceive a fair decision making process .10

The third conceptual foundation derives from the assumption that employees possess valid, unique and relevant performance information and insight that is unavailable or unobservable by the rater. Thus, when employees participate in the appraisal process, the quality and quantity of performance appraisal information increases leading to a more accurate and valid rating.11

The fourth factor is that in a participatory appraisal system, the employee attains "ownership" over the process and manifests ego involvement as the ratee manifests a stake in the success of the system, enhancing employee acceptance.'2 Employees frequently set higher performance goals than management when they possess the requisite level of autonomy, authority and resource support.13

The fifth element is that greater employee participation generates an atmos-phere of cooperation and employee support, which encourages the development of a coaching or counseling relationship, thereby reducing appraisal related tension, defensive behavior and rater-ratee conflict.14

90 Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Forms of Participation in the Appraisal Process

Comprehensive and effective participation within the performance appraisal process

consists of joint rater-ratee development of: 1) performance standards, 2) the rating form, 3) employee self-appraisal, and 4) ratee participation in the interview.15 The effectiveness of participation is moderated by two key processes, the amount and quality of informal performance feedback and goal setting which focuses attention on the future. Ideally all of the above elements are present to reinforce the attributes of a participatory, empowered work culture. If one or more of these factors is missing,

the probability of an ineffectual performance appraisal system increases significantly.

Performance Standard Participation

Clear and specific standards of performance are major elements of a valid and reliable performance appraisal system.16 The key is to develop standards that measure the essential job duties and responsibilities utilizing a balance of process, outcome, and individual and group-based performance standards. The development of reliable, valid, fair and useful performance standards is enhanced by employee participation,

as workers possess requisite unique and essential information necessary for develop-ing realistic standards.

Rating Form Participation

Employee participation in developing the rating form and appraisal procedures is the logical extension of the development of performance standards. The rating form sum-marizes the formal operational definition of what the organization considers worthy of formal appraisal. As such, it is important to gather employee input on the aspects of performance formally appraised as well as the measurement scales provided. For example, employees may prefer a pass/fail system if the focus is on global feedback versus more detailed individualized assessments.17

Self Evaluation

Self-appraisals provide employees with the opportunity to systematically assess their

performance. Studies indicate that self appraisal increases employee preparation and readiness for the appraisal interview, enhances overall satisfaction, increases perceived appraisal fairness, and can reduce defensive behavior if used for developmental pur-

poses.18 Employees can self-evaluate by completing their own appraisal and present-ing the draft for discussion with the manager or can review a draft of the manager's appraisal. Managerial and employee ratings frequently do not agree, but in a partici-patory system the goal is not absolute agreement, but a process directed towards achieving consensus over time. The self-appraisal process is improved significantly if clear performance standards are used, the employees are experienced, and trust lev-els are high.19

Performance Appraisal 91

Performance Appraisal Interview Participation Most of the appraisal research focuses on the influence of participation in the

appraisal interview. There is a large body of research stretching from the 60 s to the 90 s indicating that employee participation in the interview is associated with a vari-

ety of desirable appraisal related outcomes, including appraisal system fairness,

appraisal satisfaction, supervisory support, satisfaction with supervisors, appraisal sys-tem acceptance and greater employee acceptance of negative feedback.20

The performance appraisal process culminates with the appraisal rating. Perfor-

mance appraisal ratings are the product of an ongoing series of rater-ratee interac-tions valued by employees both intrinsically and extrinsically. Intrinsic value derives from the validation of the employee's performance efficacy, and extrinsic worth from

the linkage with external recognition and personnel decision making.21 The perfor-mance appraisal interview seriously tests the skills of the rater, and if this function is

handled poorly, the benefits of an accurate appraisal can be lost and employee moti-

vation reduced. A quality performance appraisal interview includes sensitivity to employee needs for privacy and confidentiality, giving the employee undivided atten-

tion during the appraisal interview, reserving adequate time for a full discussion of the

issues, and both the supervisor and rater's being prepared.22 Conducting the perfor-

mance appraisal interview in a perfunctory or rushed manner with numerous inter-ruptions enhances employee perceptions of manipulation.23

A participatory appraisal interview style also entails a strong emphasis on employee performance counseling. Participatory systems facilitate the discussion of

employee strengths and weaknesses in a positive context where the goal is to help the employee improve his or her performance. Hence, participatory appraisal rein-forces communication and analysis related to employee training needs, promotional opportunities, and skills development.24 A counseling approach facilitates the identi-fication of discrepancies in rater-ratee perceptions, which if left unchallenged, can lead to serious disagreement during the evaluation cycle.

Goal Setting and Feedback

An important set of appraisal moderators is goal setting and feedback. Goal setting is a well established and empirically verified theory of motivation, but the majority of goal setting research takes place in non-appraisal settings.25 Effective goal setting in the appraisal process consists of performance goals that are specific, moderately dif-ficult and accepted.26 Effective goal setting is clearly associated with higher employee performance and satisfaction.27 Goal setting within performance appraisal has been associated with greater appraisal satisfaction, higher job satisfaction, and increased performance 2,5 Goal setting's effectiveness derives from its ability to focus employee effort and attention on the critical tasks at hand, enhancing employee persistence and reducing the likelihood of being distracted.29 Goal setting is a powerful motivational technique because both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction flows from goal achieve-ment.30 Goal setting focuses attention and effort on the future which can be changed


versus the judgmental performance appraisal process's emphasis on past behavior, which cannot be altered.

An effective appraisal process requires employee feedback. Appraisal systems

that provide formal feedback once a year are more likely to be feedback deficient.31

For an appraisal system to be maximally effective, there must be ongoing formal and informal performance feedback.32 In essence, feedback is the "raw material" of employee participation. Feedback is essential in gaining the maximum benefits from goal setting.33 Without feedback, employees are unable to make adjustments in job

performance or receive positive reinforcement for effective job behavior.34 Effective performance feedback is timely, specific, behavioral in nature, and presented by a credible source.35 Performance feedback is effective in changing employee work

behavior and enhances employee job satisfaction and performance.36

Role of Employee Acceptance

Research demonstrates that performance appraisal systems that exhibit higher levels of participation are positively associated with elevated levels of employee and rater acceptance, which is a critical intermediate variable in the generation of appraisal sys-tem satisfaction, motivation and productivity.37 If employees and raters do not accept the appraisal system, the system will be ineffective irrespective of its degree of tech-

nical soundness.38 Lack of user acceptance engenders resistance and a reduction in

user motivation transforming the process into a paper "shuffling" exercise. If users

accept the system, supervisor motivation to produce an accurate performance assess-ment increases and ratees are more likely to accept organizational personnel deci-

sions.39 Employees are more likely to accept the appraisal system if they understand the

performance measurement process, agree on the value orientation of the system (i.e.,

focus on quality over quantity) share a consensus with management on the perfor-mance standards used, possess confidence in the accuracy of performance measure-

ment, and perceive an absence of rater bias.40 Prior research indicates that employee participation, goal setting and feedback enhance performance measurement accura-

cy and reduce the potential for rater bias as employees have a role in the administra-

tion of the performance measurement process.41 Thus, when systems are participatory, the rating process is more likely to be valid and produce information

that possesses utility and validity. The fact that employee acceptance is a critical variable is not surprising. Empirical

and personal experience confirms that employee perceptions regarding a tool or prac-tice colors their behavioral intentions and actual actions. If employees lack confidence in the efficacy of the rater or the validity of the system, the appraisal process breaks down. The key is the cultivation of employee acceptance, which is not an easy task.

The cultivation of high levels of employee acceptance is not accidental, howev-

er. The appraisal system cannot meet its primary goals if the manager is unskilled at conducting the interview or fails to provide clear guidance and counseling. Participa-tion, goal setting and feedback are critical for enhancing the accuracy and quality of


performance standards and goals, facilitating a consensus/understanding on performance standards, and increasing commitment to goals and standards. Participation enables the employee to offer opinions and rebut information that they disagree with.

Cultivating favorable levels of employee acceptance (an attitude) requires that all-important aspects of the appraisal system be working properly. A single defect in the appraisal process can impede employee support and confidence. For example, an accurate and fairly administered appraisal system that measures inappropriate or unimportant aspects of the job will engender user resistance (i.e., focusing on indi-

vidual performance when the work group should be the unit of analysis). Hence, there are many "veto points" in the operation of any performance appraisal system that can reduce acceptance.

Factors the Reduce the Effectiveness of Participation

There are several factors that reduce the effectiveness of participation. Participatory

systems function most effectively in an atmosphere of trust and open communication. If employees perceive that they will be punished for disagreeing, providing negative

feedback, or making mistakes, open communication will be extinguished, mitigating the positive influence of participation.42 Participation quickly becomes reduced to "pseudo-participation" in which employee input is accepted only if it conforms to

organizational or managerial demands or preferences. The end result is a diminished level of motivation and commitment as well as an increase in employee cynicism.

The second factor that attenuates the effectiveness of participation is unequal employee treatment. If employees perceive bias or favoritism in managerial behavior,

it accelerates perceptions of inequity. Managers frequently engage in what is termed "in-group" and "out-group" behavior in which employees who are liked and/or are viewed as capable are supervised in a participatory fashion while employees who are viewed unfavorably receive traditional, more authoritarian supervision.43 The catego-

rization of employees is frequently made with incomplete information leading to mis-classification of employees. Managers need to continually question their beliefs

regarding worker motivation, ability and performance, especially poorly performing employees. The key is to take a courtroom perspective, innocent until proven guilty, which forces managers to search out and analyze all sources of information that may provide explanatory, mitigating or extenuating factors on employee problems. This is one of the essential goals of a participatory performance appraisal system.

A third impediment is the absence of rater training and support in conducting participatory performance appraisal. The cultivation of participatory management requires conceptual, affective, and experiential education. Managers should receive extensive training in goal setting, setting performance standards, conducting inter-views, providing feedback, counseling employees, managing conflict, and avoiding rat-ing errors. In this training there should be a clear discussion of the ethical implications, dilemmas and conflicts inherent in the appraisal process from the per-spectives of the employee, the manager and the organization.


A fourth barrier is the absence of rating system accountability. Organizational accountability is enhanced if raters are assigned senior mentors who regularly review

the manager's administration of the performance appraisal process. Performance

appraisal management should be a formal component of the manager's rating. A relat-ed recommendation is the presence of subordinate appraisal to provide systematic feedback on managerial behavior encompassing key administrative duties including the operation of the appraisal process.44

A fifth barrier is the absence of systematic evaluation of performance appraisal system participation effectiveness. Regular employee attitude surveys and focus groups are useful as they provide aggregate employee data on the operation of the appraisal system. Absent systematic evaluation, the organization cannot make data-

based adjustments to the appraisal system.

Conclusion

Participatory performance appraisal is an essential component of a fair and ethical

evaluation of an employee's performance. Governmental organizations manifest an ethical obligation to perform this complex function in a fair and unbiased fashion given performance appraisal's implications for employee career success, self-esteem

and mental health. Multifaceted employee participation entails meaningful input in developing performance standards and the rating form, worker self-evaluation, and

two-way communication in the appraisal interview. When employees possess a mean-ingful role in the appraisal process, employee acceptance and satisfaction with the

appraisal process is strongly enhanced. Clearly, many variables contribute to dissatis-

faction with performance appraisal systems, but failure to institute a participatory sys-tem will result in continued performance appraisal ineffectiveness.

Notes L Thayer, F. (1987). "Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay Systems: The Disasters Multiply," Review of Public

Personnel Administration, volume 7, 36-53; Fox, C. J. (1991). "Employee Performance Appraisal: The Keystone Made of Clay," In C. Ban & N. M. Riccucci (Eds.), Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns-Puture Challenges. New York: Longman: Bowman, J. S. (1994), At last, an Alternative to Performance Appraisal: Total Quality Management," Public Administration Review, volume 54, 129-136.

2 Roberts, G. E. (1992). "Linkages Between Performance Appraisal System Effectiveness and Rater and Ratee Acceptance: Evidence from a Survey of Municipal Personnel Administrators," Review of Public Personnel Administration, volume 12, 19-41.

3 Deming, W E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

4 Carroll, S. J, C. E. Schneier (1982). Performance and Review Systems: The Identification, Measurement, Development of Performance in Organizations. Dallas: Scott, Foresman and Company; Bernardin, H. J. and R. W Beatty (1984). Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human behavior at Work. Boston: Kent Publishing Company; Murphy, K. R., and J. N. Cleveland (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational and Goal-Based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

5 Cawley, B. D., L. M. Keeping and P E. Levy (1998). "Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Field Investigations,' journal of Applied Psychology, volume 83, 615-633


6 Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998,

7 Latham G. P. and K. N. Wexley (1981), Increasing Productivity Through Performance Appraisal. Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley; Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Daley, D. (1992), Performance

Appraisal in the Public Sector. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books

8 Hackman, R. and G. Oldham (1980). Work Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

9 Folger, R. (1987). "Distributive and Procedural Justice in the Workplace," Social Justice Research, volume 1,

143-159; Greenberg, J. (1987). "Using Diaries to Promote Procedural Justice in Performance Appraisals,"

Social Justice Research, volume 1, 219-234.

1° Folger, 1987.

" Roberts, 1992; Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work

attitudes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

12 Dachler, H. P and 13. Wilport, B. (1978). "Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organizations: A Critical Analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 23, 1-39; Cotton, 1993.

13 Latham and Wexley, 1981.

14 Jordan, J. L. (1990). "Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Supervisors' 11aits," Psychological Reports, volume 66, 1337-1338; Daley, 1992; Tjosvold, D. and]. A. Hata) (1992). "Performance Appraisal of Managers:

Goal Interdependence, Ratings and Outcomes,"Journal of Social Psychology, volume 132, 629-639.

15 Roberts, 1992; Williams, T. R. and P E. Levy (1992). "The Effects of Perceived System Knowledge on the

Agreement Between Self-Ratings and Supervisor Ratings," Personnel Psychology, volume 45, 835-37; Greller,

M. M. (1995, June). Iiirticipative appraisal reviews or participative managers doing reviews? Paper

presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Organization Behavior Division, Vancouver, BC;

Moussavi, F. and D. L. Ashbaugh (1995). "Perceptual Effects of Participative, Goal-Oriented Performance

Appraisal: A Field Study in Public Agencies," Puma/ of Public Administration Research and Theory, volume 5, 331-343; Roberts, G. E. (1995). "Developmental Performance Appraisal in Municipal Government:

An Antidote for a Deadly Disease?," Review of Public Personnel Administration, volume 15, 17-43.

lb Bernardin and Beatty, 1984.

17 Roberts, G. E. (1996). AA Case Study in Performance Appraisal System Development: Lessons From a

Municipal Police Department," American Review of Public Administration, volume 26, 361-385.

18 Roberts, 1992,

19 Roberts, 1992.

28 Roberts, G. E. (1994). "Maximizing Performance Appraisal System Acceptance: Perspectives From Municipal

Government Personnel Administrators," Public Personnel Management, volume 23, 525-549; Cawley,

Keeping and Levy, 1998.

21 Bernardin and Beatty, 1984.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Nathan, B. R., A. M. Mohrman and J. F. Milliman (1991). "Interpersonal Relations as a Context for the Effects

of Appraisal Interviews on Performance and Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study," Academy of Management Journal, volume 34, 352-369.

25 Locke, E. A. and G. P Latham (1984). Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall; Moussavi and Ashbaugh, 1995.

26 Locke, E. A. and G. P Latham (1990). "Work Motivation: The High Performance Cycle," in U. Kleinbeck et al.

(Eds.), Work motivation (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


21 Longenecker, C. 0., J. A. Sca-zzero and T. T. Stansileld (1994). "Quality Improvement Through Team Goal

Setting, Feedback and Problem Solving," International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, volume 11, 45-52; Locke and Latham, 1990.

29 Dobbins, G. H., R. i.. Cardy and S. J. Platz-Vieno (1990). A Contingency Approach to Appraisal Satisfaction:

An Initial Investigation of the Joint Effects of Organizational Variables and Appraisal Characteristics," puma/ of Management, volume 16, 619-632; Pooyan, A. and B, Eberhardt (1989), "Correlates of Performance

Appraisal Satisfaction Among Supervisory and Nonsupervisory Employees,"journai of Business Research, volume 19, 215-226.

Antoni, C. H. and J. Beckmann (1990). "An Action Control Conceptualization of Goal-Setting and Feedback

Effects," In Li. Kleinbeck et al. (Eds.), Work motivation (41-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,

30 Locke and Latham, 1990.

31 Bernardin and Beatty, 1984.

32 Latham and Wesley, 1981.

33 Locke and Latham, 1990.

34 Latham, G. P., T. R. Mitchell, T. R. and D. L. Dossett. (1978). `The Importance of Participative Goal Setting

and Anticipated Rewards on Goal Difficulty and Job Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, volume

63, 163-171.

35 Ilgen, D. R., C. D. Fisher and S. Taylor (1979). "Consequences of Individual Feedback on Behavior in

Organizations,"Journal of Applied Psychology, volume 64, 349-371; Ashford S, J. and L. L. Cummings

(1983). Feedback as an Individual Resource: Personal Strategies of Creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, volume 31, 370-398.

30 Longenecker, Scazzero and Stansfield, 1994,

37 Roberts, 1992; Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998.

38 Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Dailey, R. C., and D. J. Kirk, D. J. (1992), "Distributive and Procedural Justice as

Antecedents of Job Dissatisfaction and Intent to 'Turnover," Human Relations, volume 45, 305-317.

39 Carroll and Schneier; Folger, 1987; Harris, M. M. (1994). "Rater Motivation in the Performance Appraisal

Context: A Theoretical Framework,"Journal of Management, volume 20, 737-756.

-in Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Roberts, 1995.

31 Roberts, 1992.

42 Popovich, M. G. ed. (1998). Creating high-pelfortitance government organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass Publishers

43 Roberts, G. E. and T. Reed (1996). "PerfOrmance Appraisal Participation, Goal Setting and Feedback: The

Influence of Supervisory Style," Review of Public Personnel Administration, volume 16, 29-60.

Coggburni. D. (1998). "Subordinate Appraisals of Managers: Lessons From a State Agency," Review of Public Personnel Adininistration, volutne 18, 68-79.


Author

Gary E. Roberts

Associate Professor

Division of Public Administration University of Memphis 431 Clement Hall

Memphis, TN 38152

(901) 678-5527

Gary E. Roberts is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at the University of Memphis specializing in human resource management. Dr. Roberts' past work experi-

ence includes service in local government public safety research and rural development planning. His major areas of research interest include organizational work-life benefit

practices, performance measurement and appraisal systems, and MPA curriculum design

and evaluation. Dr. Roberts has published extensively in public administration journals including the American Review of Public Administration, Review of Pubic Personnel Administration, the International Journal of Public Administration and Public Personnel Management.


0000 - Performance Apprasial Roberts 2003

Documents

Transcript of 0000 - Performance Apprasial Roberts 2003