4-Human Res - IJHRMR - ASPECTS - SUJOYA RAY MOULIK 4-P

International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research (IJHRMR) ISSN 2249-6874 Vol. 2 Issue 3 Sep 2012 29-42 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

ASPECTS OF APPRAISER COMPETENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: PERSPECTIVES FROM

INDIAN IT PROFESSIONALS

SUJOYA RAY MOULIK

Research Scholar, Department of Business Management, University of Calcutta, India

ABSTRACT

One of the many contributing factors of successful performance appraisals is the competence of

the supervisor/appraiser. This is more so in the case of appraising knowledge worker performance. The

intangible nature of knowledge worker (KW) renders assessing knowledge worker productivity a

difficult task. The unique skills of the knowledge worker, heterogeneous work requirements and the wide

range of tasks which comprise knowledge work demand that those appraising such employees possess a

certain range of competences. This paper attempts to identify those competences that IT professionals in

India perceive to be important for supervising appraisers. Data collected from 75 IT professionals in

India has been collected and analysed with factor analysis to finally reach four broad competence groups.

KEY WORDS : performance appraisal, competence, knowledge worker.

INTRODUCTION

Effective implementation of performance management practices is crucial for any organisation.

All organisations need an effective system for monitoring and enhancing employee productivity and

performance. Employees not only require adequate feedback about their performance but also need to be

motivated to learn and develop further. Performance appraisals have featured as a critical area of interest

to researchers and practitioners alike. As a system for managing employee performance the process of

performance management is most commonly represented as a cycle consisting steps of planning,

supporting, reviewing and rewarding performance. Common in most interpretations of performance

appraisal and management is the idea that manager and the managed should have a shared view of what

is expected of the employee; involvement and participation of a direct kind are typically advocated as

means by which this shared view may be arrived at. Both the rater (the immediate supervisor) and the

ratee (the employee) need to agree upon acceptable standards of performance and execution of

performance plans need to be joint venture of the appraiser and the apraisee. The appraisee is responsible

for execution of the responsibilities bestowed upon him and the immediate supervisor plays an enabling

role providing feedback and support throughout the cycle of events. Thus it may be established that the

immediate supervisor plays a pivotal role in the performance appraisal process. Supporting performance

is seen as a responsibility of the line manager who also has a particular part to play in reviewing

30 Sujoya Ray Moulik

performance. Moreover, review is seen as an on ongoing activity rather than as something that happens

just once or twice a year. (Williams, 2003).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Role of the Appraiser

Law (2007) states that performance evaluations are mandatory procedures in most organisations

with the supervisor playing a very dominant role, with meetings mostly scheduled by the manager rather

than the employee and typically following a format pre-established by management. The appraiser plays

a pivotal role throughout the different phases of the performance evaluation cycle. (Fink and Longnecker

1998, Kumar 2005). The evaluations deal with issues (problems) identified by the manager, and relate to

goals or standards largely set by the manager. The manager, or evaluation team, in essence sits in

judgment of the employee, who usually is alone. Focus is given on is on the employees' past efforts,

actions and decisions and tied to decisions by management about salary, bonuses, advancement and

layoffs. St-Onge et al (2009) in their study on determinants of managers’ motivation to evaluate

employees’ performance at work found that managers express opinions that can be associated with

different perspectives: psychometric, affective, political, strategic, cultural, justice, and symbolic.

Despite various appraisal shortcomings, participants in their study asserted that rating provides the best

available basis for rewarding performance through a merit-based reward structure and both managers and

employees continue to accept appraisal systems even while recognizing that the process is fraught with

inaccuracies. In their study, appraisals per se, were described as much too subjective and overly

influenced by supervisors’ prejudices and shifting values to be an accurate reflection of a worker’s

contribution. Performance evaluation was also perceived as a hierarchical control tool that corresponds to

classical concepts of good management. Specifically, those who control the performance appraisal

process also control the distribution of awards. Performance appraisal thus becomes a means of

strengthening the organizational hierarchy. Performance appraisals provide a broad range of work rules

and expectations that guide the efforts of employees and make sense out of doing tasks assigned by

others. Here, the worker will be measured on specific performance, which is thus important. Without the

rules, employees may conclude that nothing counts. In addition, appraisals support the need for order in

the organization. Although problematic, evaluation attempts to control, interpret and reward behaviour.

Ratings show that managers care what subordinates do and provide a sense of order to the vast number of

tasks performed.

At the very beginning of the appraisal process, the supervisor and the employee jointly set and

clarify goals and performance expectations. It has been seen (Locke, et al., 1981) that goal setting is an

important element in employee motivation. Goals can stimulate employee effort, focus attention, increase

persistence, and encourage employees to find new and better way to work. A cardinal principle of

performance management is that employees should have the chance to improve their appraisal results –

especially if their past results have not been so good. It is a very serious flaw in the process of appraisal

if this principle is denied in practice. Bannister (1989) notes that it is important that the appraiser be

Aspects of Appraiser Competence in the Context of Employee 31 Performance Management: Perspectives from Indian IT Professionals

well-informed and credible. If it is so, employees are more likely to view the appraisal process as

accurate and fair. They also express more acceptances of the appraiser’s feedback and a greater

willingness to change. It is also imperative that supervisors monitor and record subordinates’ behaviours

and performance and provide feedback and assist through problem solving so as to help subordinates

successfully achieve delegated responsibilities. The supervisors must ensure that the subordinates have

the authority, knowledge, skills, and organisational resources to successfully complete work targets. In

addition, supervisors need to communicate potential performance rewards/outcomes associated with

different levels of performance. Decision pertaining to performance should be non-biased and should be

expressed as factually as possible. During the appraisal review, managers meet with subordinates to

review performance ratings, deal with subordinate reactions (sometimes resistant or negative) to

appraisal ratings, solve problems with employees on how to improve performance (if needing

improvement), and potentially deal with career counselling and career development issues. (Kumar,

2005)

It has been observed that dissatisfaction with appraisal often occurs due to inefficiency of the

appraiser’s observation and judgmental skills. Research suggests that the rater‘s competence is related to

employee satisfaction with the system and process. Landy et al. (1978) tested appraisal systems in

general and found that employee perceptions of the appraisal processes of fairness and accuracy were a

function of the frequency of evaluation, identification of goals to eliminate weaknesses, and supervisor

knowledge of the subordinate’ duties and performance. Common complaints that surface include the

rater’s lack of knowledge of ratee’s job, possession of erroneous /incomplete information or differing

expectations because of level of hierarchy & roles, bias and errors in human judgment as well as existing

stereotypes & prejudices which taint the reviews. In the context of evaluation failure to recognise

excellent performance, promotional decision errors and staffing jobs with inadequate skills mix are

issues that raise concern. In respect of guidance, development and motivation some of the things that

may go wrong include failure to recognise potential and failure to build skills through training.

(Williams, 2003).

Mount(1984) and Pooyan & Eberhardt (1990) found that open, two-way communication,

mutual trust, opportunities for ratees to participate in goal setting, the supervisor’s knowledge of ratees’

performance, being evaluated on job-related factors, are significantly related to ratees’ satisfaction with

performance appraisals. Bannister & Balkin (1990) have reported that appraisees seem to have greater

acceptance of the appraisal process, and feel more satisfied with it, when the process is directly linked to

rewards. The supervisor’s attitude towards his subordinate can impact performance. Manzoni and

Barsoux (2002) argue that while it is up to the supervisor to initiate feedback and review discussions,

the employee needs to be an active partner in it. The employee is more likely to be receptive to feedback

if the employee sees the process as fair i.e. perceiving that their views were heard, supervisor was

consistent, reasonable and fact-based in making decisions and came across as genuine. When an

employee is perceived as a weak performer, it is the responsibility of the supervisor/manager to try to

prevent a further plunge in performance and prevent the ‘set up to fail syndrome’ from the start.


Manzoni and Barsoux (2002) describe supervisors who work on several fronts to get more from

their perceived weak performers as ‘syndrome busters’. They outline the following action areas to deal

with weak performers:

(1) Agreeing on the symptoms. Both parties must identify the specific areas where they agree the

employee has struggled.

(2) Diagnosing the causes. The supervisor and employee must jointly explore the causes of weak

performance including how the supervisor’s behaviour has affected performance.

(3) Finding the cure. Both must agree on performance objectives and on specific actions to improve the

relationship.

(4) Preventing relapse. The supervisor and the employee should pledge to address future problems earlier

and open the door to more open communication.

(5) Monitoring the effectiveness of the treatment. Beyond the initial discussions, both parties must hold

periodic progress reviews.

Managing Knowledge Workers: IT Professionals In Perspective

Drucker (1959) first referred to “knowledge workers” (KW) as workers that work with

intangible resources. KWs have been described as high-level employees who apply theoretical and

analytical knowledge, acquired through formal education, to develop new products or services

(Drucker,1999). Dove (1998, cited in Ramiraz and Nembhard 2004) classify KWs into three categories:

(1) Creation of knowledge work, based on innovation. These workers, such as engineers, managers and

inventors, depend on innovation to do their work. They are not doing a pre-established task, but rather

they define and perform their task for the very first time. They create tools that will be used by other

KWs to do their jobs.

(2) Portable knowledge work, based on wide, immediate utility. These workers possess knowledge that

they can apply in a general manner. They can use their knowledge in various scenarios or organizations.

Examples of this class are graduating MBAs and software programmers. These workers use their general

knowledge to run operations or use previously designed tools to do their job.

(3) Specialty knowledge work, based on narrow but high utility. These workers have a specific

knowledge that is needed to perform a task. They are considered experts at what they do, and possess

knowledge in applications that are specific to the task they do and their knowledge is not easily

transferable to other areas. An example of this type of worker may include programmers that write code

in a proprietary language.

Drawing from previous research (Drucker 1999, Katarzyna1 and Jacek 2012) it may be pointed

out that there are certain areas of differences between traditional employees and knowledge workers.


Knowledge work involves tasks rich in information processing, with non-standard criteria used to make

decisions. The use of theoretical knowledge and many years of experience as a basis for solving the

client’s problems are always stressed. The nature of the relationships between employers and knowledge

workers is such that the latter do not link their future with the company as do traditional workers, and are

even referred to as “freelance hirelings” (Katarzyna1 and Jacek.2012). They are focused on their own

career, its development and their place in the professional community, rather than on success within their

employing company. KWs realise their ambitions at work through the development of excellent

products, and this excellence obscures other functions of the product. As an effect of this attitude, they

treat tasks as exciting challenges. Researchers have identified challenge, autonomy, due respect,

recognition, opportunity for learning, opportunity for career development, personalized rewards as well

as salary (money) can be taken as the basic motivational factors of KW (Drucker 1999, Amar 2002,

Smith & Rupp 2004). Harman and Brelade (2003) after another study in various organizations state that

only the financial reward is not enough, the reward system should include non-financial rewards, such as

praise and recognition, opportunities for career development and opportunities for training development.

They strive to constantly enhance their professional knowledge and skills, as this is the only way they

can remain valued within their profession. Their value in the eyes of colleagues and exacting clients is

dependent on these skills and talents. Research suggests that managers can influence a KWs motivation

by creating a climate of mutual respect and spending time with the follower and enhancing, rather than

undermining self-confidence, increasing follower knowledge, skills and abilities through exposure to

various educational and training programs, as well as experiences. These activities enhance both KW

capability and self-confidence. Supervisors should also concentrate on establishing realistic, meaningful

and attainable goals with the follower satisfactory to both parties and. showing appreciation when the

follower meets or exceeds expectations, or addressing problematic issues regarding the follower’s

performance by focusing upon the work rather than the individual. (Isaac et al 2001, Smith and Rupp

2004)

Given the highly skilful, specialised and often intangible nature of knowledge work the nuances

of managing knowledge workers has attracted a lot of interest from practitioners and researchers alike.

Ehin (2008) argues that organizations need to appreciate that knowledge and knowledge workers cannot

be managed in the traditional sense. The size of an organizational unit affects the establishment and

maintenance of “voluntary” interdependent relationships among its members. The formation of

hierarchical social systems is not a natural phenomenon among humans and the more an institution

supports the principles of self-organization openly, the more social capital and tacit knowledge it will

generate which, in turn, will lead to increased levels of innovation, commitment and entrepreneurship.

He advocates ’unmanaging’ KWs by giving up hierarchical control in order to gain much greater self-

regulating order and participation throughout an organization.

The IT profession typifies the concept of knowledge work. Glen (2003) feels that IT

professionals are able to function best when they understand the mission, vision, and values of their

organization; clearly understand their role in the organization; recognize technology’s part in fulfilling


the organization’s goals; and feel that the values of the organization are consistently upheld by leaders.

Major et al (2007) in their study on best supervisory practices for IT employees points out certain

challenges pertaining to managing IT professionals such as the nature of IT work, which requires a high

degree of flexibility and adaptability on the part of IT personnel. Other complexities of this profession

involve elements such as the 24-hour nature of client demands, the need to respond to emergent issues

and unplanned requests, and sporadic periods of intense work activity. Citing previous research (Lim

and Teo 1999; Rajeshwari and Anantharaman 2003), they state that IT workers experience numerous

sources of stress that are universal across occupations and work environments. As in other professions,

stress in IT results from intensive work demands, complex relationships with others, career concerns,

systems maintenance, role ambiguity, and tedious administrative tasks as well as fear of obsolescence ,

team and client interactions, role overload, work culture issues, technical constraints, and competing

work and family demands. Sharp et al. (2009) suggests that even when building participation, trust,

autonomy and empowerment, managers cannot forget that almost every IT specialist seeks to develop

excellent solutions and overestimates the speed with which the problem can be solved. Setting objectives

must take into account both conditions external to the team (e.g., required time limits), as those within

the team, including the need to limit the software specialist’s need to pursue excellence. For IT

organisations management by objectives requires analysts and project managers to develop schedules in

a participatory manner, adapting them to external conditions and constraints in such a way that the

schedules and products agreed upon are also acceptable from the professional perspective of those

implementing them (Katarzyna1 and Jacek,2012). In the context of performance management, it is thus

imperative that supervisors are able to clarify expectations and roles and engage in collaborative goal

setting. Granting a sense of involvement and a sense of self direction to employees would instil a feeling

of autonomy and involvement in the employee. Providing career development support, facilitating peer

mentoring, providing recognition, reward, and acknowledgement, providing resources and motivation for

formal training and networking with other professionals and engaging in continuous needs assessment

are some of the supervisory practices which are relevant for the IT profession ( Major et al 2007).

It cannot be denied that appraising and managing the performance of knowledge workers in the IT

profession is a skilful task and not only should they possess the required skills but also should instil a

sense of confidence in those who they are appraising.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The following study is an attempt to identify the skills that IT professionals feel appraisers

should possess so as execute performance management practices effectively.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Sample

Using simple random sampling, data was collected from 75 (total sent-110, received-75) IT

sector employees (both male and female) working in supervisory positions in the Indian IT sector. The


age of the respondents varied from 34-47. Of the 75 respondents 67 were male and 8 were female.

Employees working in Nasscom listed organisations were chosen for this survey. The questionnaire was

distributed to most respondents in an on-line format so as to reach out to employees based in different

cities in India. (Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore and Pune).

Research Instrument

The study depends mainly on the primary data collected through a structured questionnaire

consisting 15 Likert Scale items (5 point scale) covering the different roles of the rater /supervisor in the

appraisal process. These variables covered areas such as goal setting, appraising, coaching and so on

(based on Longnecker and Fink 1998, Major et al. 2007)

The scale consisted 15 statements focusing on the role of the supervisor at different steps of the

performance appraisal process- goal setting, reviewing and post appraisal counselling, feedback and

development, measured on Likert’s 5 point scale ranging from strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree

and strongly disagree. The Cronbach’s Alpha Co-efficient Reliability Score was found to be 0.799, the

score being sufficient to allow further analysis.

Technique

The data obtained in the research has been evaluated by exploratory factor analysis in SPSS in

order to transform the many variables constituting the different roles/competencies of the appraiser into

distinct functions to be executed by the appraiser that impact an individual’s satisfaction with the

appraiser and thus the appraisal function.

FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

Factor Analysis

For the analysis, confirmation that the data are correlated is revealed by the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin

Measure of Sampling Adequacy (0.610) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p=0.000). The items with

highest loadings were used in assigning the labelling of the factor. The data were analyzed using factor

analysis (Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation in SPSS v.16). Factor Analysis reduced

the 15 independent variables into four competence groups/categories derived using the Eigen value

criterion. The rotated component matrix is reported in Table 1.


Table 1.Rotated Component Matrixa

Component 1 2 3 4 Q1 0.728 0.096 0.001 0.176 Q2 0.691 0.098 -0.161 0.293 Q3 0.516 0.522 -0.121 -0.018 Q4 0.053 0.436 -0.144 0.728 Q5 0.805 -0.135 -0.042 0.246 Q6 -0.114 0.783 0.012 -0.007 Q7 0.175 0.747 0.278 0.095 Q8 0.346 0.724 0.232 0.135 Q9 0.762 -0.136 0.063 -0.09 Q10 -0.228 0.663 -0.194 0.089 Q11 0.622 0.253 0.346 -0.063 Q12 0.087 -0.074 0.329 0.842 Q13 0.344 0.048 0.314 0.704 Q14 -0.062 -0.061 0.884 0.225 Q15 0.003 0.145 0.882 0.104 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

According to the results of Factor Analysis, the first four factors were chosen because they

explained a high proportion of original variance and had Eigen value higher than one. These factors

explained 67.5 % of variance, respectively. (Table2)


Table 2. Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial

Eigen

values

Extraction

Sums of Square

d Loading

s

Rotation

Sums of

Squared

Loadings

Tota

l

% of Varian

ce Cumulat

ive % Total

% of Varian

ce Cumulat

ive % Total

% of Varian

ce Cumulat

ive % 1 4.22

2 28.147 28.147 4.222 28.147 28.147 3.238 21.586 21.586 2 2.41

8 16.123 44.27 2.418 16.123 44.27 2.749 18.329 39.914 3

2.17 14.469 58.738 2.17 14.469 58.738 2.121 14.138 54.052 4 1.31

7 8.779 67.517 1.317 8.779 67.517 2.02 13.465 67.517 Extracti

on Method: Principa

l Compon

ent Analysis.


Grouping and Interpretation of Factors

The factor groups derived through factor analysis have been defined on the basis of the

component(s) with higher factor loadings in each group. The resulting groups with their respective

components are described below:

C1 Technical/Project Management Competence

This competence comprises the appraisers ability to cascade the project requirements to

individual work targets as well as understanding of the job being appraised, technical knowhow and

depth of understanding of the prerequisites of the job as well as awareness of how job performance can

be improved. Project Management skills such as scheduling and resource allocation are also relevant for

those managing project teams.

C2 Evaluative Competence

This group includes setting of specific and measurable goals, being able to distinguish average

and superior performance understanding of the performance indicators for the job and the capability for

fair, objective appraisal so as to give the employee a clear idea of expectations and full information of his

strengths and weaknesses

C3 Leadership Competence

The appraiser, in most cases being the immediate supervisor, plays multiple roles of a coach,

trainer, mentor and performance counsellor. He/she is also responsible for handling grievance arising out

of appraisals and subsequent conflict over the ratings. The appraiser therefore should be adept at

counselling and conflict management as well as project management activities such as time management

and prioritisation .

C4 Communication Competence

Communication would comprise both written and verbal communication which would further

enable goal setting, setting KRAs that are easily comprehended and counselling and feedback skills and

so on.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study lend support to previous research in terms of competence required for

performance appraisal. (Fink and Longnecker 1998, Glen 2003, Kumar 2005). As in Major et al’s (2007)

study C1 and C2 can be termed as task focused competencies and C3 and C4 as people focussed. It might

be noted here that the task focussed competencies account for more of the total variance compared to the

people focussed. With reference to the IT industry this is an interesting observation. Interpretations of the

concept of knowledge work lend support to the fact that knowledge work combines unique skills, work

methods and intelligence. The largely undefined boundaries of knowledge work make assessing

knowledge work a daunting task in itself. Setting of tangible goals in an industry dealing with intangibles

is also a complicated task. Thus, it is important that the appraiser possess the technical understanding of


not only the job being appraised but also the nuances of complex knowledge work which might not lend

itself to tradition of by the book evaluation mechanisms. It is important that the supervisor is able to

foster an environment of professional competence. Knowledge workers prefer autonomy and are largely

self driven. Recognition and reward is important to them in terms of motivation as is a comfortable work

environment (Smith and Rupp 2003, Glen2003, Isaac 2001). Any initiative taken by the organisation to

enhance the competitive excellence of employees, be it challenging work or competitive co-workers,

have a positive impact upon job satisfaction and productivity. (Narang and Dwivedi, 2010) The limited

shelf life of the professionals (Allee 1997) and threat of obsolescence calls for supervisors being able to

define career development opportunities through learning opportunities and widespread exposure to a

variety of tasks and roles. Hence, the need for technical and evaluative competence. Also, the

occupational commitment exercised by IT professionals reflects the need for the supervisors to reflect

occupational competence so as to evoke feelings of trust and confidence in the work environment.

The importance of people focussed competencies (C3 and C4) cannot be ignored. Agrawal and

Thite (2006) in their research on importance of soft skills for IT project managers state that software

professionals in leadership position are seen to be reluctant or unable to look beyond their technical

horizon and understand the dynamics of organisational and social issues. Though the tenets of

micromanagement may not apply to knowledge workers who prefer covert instead of overt styles of

managing, in the context of appraisals, it is important that the supervisor is capable of communication of

the purpose of the performance appraisal system and how it is being leveraged in light of promoting the

professional intellect. (Narang and Dwivedi, 2010; Smith and Rupp 2004) In many organisations,

appraisals have been upgraded to online, paperless modes. In the case of modern modes of mass

communications such as e-mail, misunderstandings may lead to toxic worry as a commonplace symptom

of the modern knowledge-worker environment. It is warned that organizations in general are in danger of

losing what is referred to as the human moment – an authentic psychological encounter that can only

occur when two people share the same physical space. (Smith and Rupp, 2004) Members must be able to

say what they think, share new ideas and risk making mistakes. Also, members must be able to provide

feedback and accept criticism. Creating an environment where individual members can speak freely is

crucial for creating a cohesive and successful team (Armstrong & Associates, 2002; Hawkins, 2000).

Another feature of the IT industry is the simultaneous allocation of the employee on multiple projects. In

such complex matrix environments, it is the responsibility of the supervisor (s) to ensure that appraisals

are factual and developmental guidance is relevant to the work being done. Role conflicts and time

management issues may require intervention of the supervisor for which he must be equipped.

An implication for IT organisations in the context of appraiser competencies is recognising the

need for appraiser training on the process of managing, motivating and evaluating employee

performance. The usual components of such programs would comprise feedback and communication

skills, developing goals and standards, documentation skills, conducting the appraisal interview, practice

in using the rating form, and discussing rating errors to avoid. Training should also incorporate complete

explanations of the philosophy and nature of the appraisal system. In the case of KW appraisals, covert


management skills would be of utmost importance as traditional micromanagement would not go well

with the autonomy and flexibility requirements of knowledge work. Empowerment, mentoring and

“unmanaging” would need to be stressed upon for any such program (Ehin, 2008). Dealing with weak

performance would entail a good understanding of the employee’s job and require a continuous feedback

mechanism which though corrective should not be intrusive. Agarwal and Thite (2006) suggest that it is

important that organisations initiate measures to develop soft skills in IT Project Managers as a strategic

priority. Some of the measures they suggest include incorporating soft skills as an important measure of

selection and performance assessment of project managers; providing necessary training and learning

environment to help project managers acquire the soft skills; recognising and rewarding project managers

with exceptional soft skills and projecting them as appropriate role models and mentors; and designing

and implementing appropriate career management strategies that ensure smooth transition of technical

professionals in to leadership roles. Project management skills such as scheduling, time management and

resource allocation are some practical areas of training offered to those managing project teams.

Scope for Further Research

This study is limited to the perceptions and perspectives of 75 Indian IT professionals. Since the

majority of the respondents (67 out of 75) were male, this research lacked the input to determine whether

there would be any difference of opinion between male and female KW’s. Difference in perspectives

between those in other knowledge based industries have not been taken into consideration. Future studies

might focus on whether IT professionals’ perspectives are similar or dissimilar to other knowledge based

professions.

REFERENCES

1. Agrawal, N. M. & Thite, M. 2006. Nature & importance of soft skills in software project

leaders. Asia Pacific Management Review, 11(2), 405-413

2. Allee, V 1997, 12 Principles of Knowledge Management, Training and Development, Vol. 51

No. 110, Pp. 71-75. Amar, A.D. (2002), Managing Knowledge Workers, Quorum, New York,

NY

3. Brelade, S & Harman, C 2003. Knowledge Workers Want To Reap Rewards. Strategic Hr

Review 2. 18-21

4. Dove, R. 1998. The Knowledge Worker. Automotive Manufacturing and Production, 110(6):26-

8.

5. Drucker, P. 1999. Management Challenges for the 21st Century. Woburn: Oxford.

6. Bannister, B.D. (1986). Performance Outcome Feedback and Attributional Feedback:

Interactive Effects on Recipient Responses, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 71, 203-210


7. Bannister, B.D. & Balkin, D.B. (1990). Performance Evaluation and Compensation Feedback

Messages: And Integrated Model, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol 63, June, British

Psychological Society

8. Kumar, DSP Dev (2005), Performance Appraisal: The Importance of Rater Training, Journal of

the Kuala Lumpur Royal Malaysia Police College, Vol 4, pp.1-15.

9. Deming, W.E. (1986) Out Of the Crisis, Cambridge, Mass: Mit Center for Advanced

Engineering Study

10. Drucker, P. (1959), The Landmarks Of Tomorrow, Harper & Row, New York, Ny.

11. Drucker, P. (1999), ‘Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge’, California

Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, 79-85.

12. Ehin Charles (2008), Un-Managing Knowledge Workers, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9

No. 3, Pp. 337-350

13. Fink L. S., Longenecker C.O., (1998) "Training as a Performance Appraisal Improvement

Strategy", Career Development International, Vol. 3 Iss: 6, Pp.243 - 251

14. Glen, P. (2003) Leading Geeks. How to Manage and Lead People Who Deliver Technology.

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

15. Isaac, R.G., Zerbe, W.J. And Pitt, D.C. (2001), “Leadership and Motivation: The Effective

Application

16. Of Expectancy Theory”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13 No. 2, Pp. 212-26.

17. Katarzyna L., Jacek W. (2012) Managing It Workers. Business, Management and Education,

10(1): 77–90

18. Landy, E J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978) Correlates Of Perceived Fairness and

Accuracy of Performance Evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751-754.

19. Law, D.R. (2007) Appraising Performance Appraisals: A Critical Look At An external Control Management

Technique. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 26, 18-19

20. Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. (1999) Occupational stress and IT personnel in Singapore:

Factorial dimensions and differential effects. International Journal of Information Management,

19, 277–291.

21. Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M. & Latham, G.P. (1981) Goal Setting and Task

Performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 90, 125-152

22. Major, D. A., Davis, D. D., Germano, L. M., Fletcher, T. D., Sanchez-Hucles, J. And Mann, J.

(2007), Managing Human Resources in Information Technology: Best Practices Of High

Performing Supervisors. Hum. Resource. Management. 46: 411–427.


23. Manzoni, J., & Barsoux, J. (2002). The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome. How Good Managers Cause

Great People To Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

24. Mintzberg, H. (1998). Five Ps for Strategy, In: Mintzberg, H., J.B. Quinn and S. Ghoshal (Eds.):

The Strategy Process, revised European Ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

25. Mount, M. K. (1984). Satisfaction with a Performance Appraisal System and Appraisal

Discussion, Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 271-279.

26. Narang & Dwivedi (2010) – Managing the Job Satisfaction of Knowledge Workers: An

Empirical Investigation. Asia Pacific Journal Of Business And Management, 2010, Volume 1

(1), 1-14

27. Pooyan, A., & Eberhardt, B. J. (1989). Correlates of Performance Appraisal Satisfaction among

Supervisory and Non-Supervisory Employees. Journal of Business Research, 19, 215-226.

28. Rajeswari, K. S., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2003). Development of an instrument to measure

stress among software professionals: Factor analytic study. Proceedings of the 2003 ACM

SIGMIS Conference on Computer Personnel Research, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 34–43.

29. Ramírez, Y.W, Nembhard, D.A. (2004) Measuring Knowledge Worker Productivity: A

Taxonomy, Journal Of Intellectual Capital, 5, 602-629.

30. Sharp, H.; Baddoo, N.; Beecham, S.; Hall, T.; Robinson, H. 2009. Models Of Motivation In

Software Engineering, Information And Software Technology 51: 219–233

31. Smith, A.D. & Rupp, W.T. (2004)"Knowledge Workers' Perceptions Of Performance Ratings",

Journal Of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 Iss: 3, Pp.146 – 166

32. St-Onge, S., Morin, D., Bellehumeur, M. And Dupuis, F. (2009) Manager's Motivation to

Evaluate Subordinate Performance. Qualitative Research in Organisations and Management: An

International Journal. Vol 4, No.3, Pp 273-293.

33. Williams Richard S. (2003) Managing Employee Performance: Design And Implementation In

Organization, Singapore: Thomson Asia Pte. Ltd.,

4-Human Res - IJHRMR - ASPECTS - SUJOYA RAY MOULIK 4-P

Documents

Transcript of 4-Human Res - IJHRMR - ASPECTS - SUJOYA RAY MOULIK 4-P