Manager's Motivation

download Manager's Motivation

of 21

Transcript of Manager's Motivation

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    1/21

    Managers motivation to evaluatesubordinate performance

    Sylvie St-Onge Department of Management, HEC Montreal, Montreal, Canada

    Denis Morin Department of Management and Human Resources,

    Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM), Montreal, Canada, and

    Mario Bellehumeur and Francine Dupuis HEC Montreal, Montreal, Canada

    Abstract

    Purpose This paper aims to focus on one of the most frequently cited problems with respect to theperformance management process: the prevalence of performance appraisal distortion.

    Design/methodology/approach Through semi-structured interviews with managers, this paperattempts to answer the following question: Which factors influence managers motivation to distort theperformance evaluation ratings of their subordinates?

    Findings This paper offers three main contributions or implications. First, from a methodologicalpoint of view, using a qualitative research design to investigate the appraisal of subordinatesperformance is useful because it allows us to reduce the gap between research and practice. Second,this study shows that researchers must embrace or integrate various theoretical perspectives (rational,affective, political, strategic, cultural, justice, and symbolic), given that managers motivation toevaluate subordinate performance cannot be analyzed outside of the social context. Third, from apractical point of view, managers motivation to evaluate subordinate performance is less about thetechnique used and more about leadership support, execution, and overall performance culture.

    Originality/value To date, prior research has focused on improving performance appraisalaccuracy through experimental research design by emphasizing rating criteria, rater errors, ratertraining, and the various rating methods. Despite extensive research, very little progress has beenmade toward improving rater accuracy.

    Keywords Motivation (psychology), Performance appraisal, Performance management, Managers

    Paper type Research paper

    Dissatisfaction with performance management has been around for many years (Bretzet al., 1992). A survey of 50,000 respondents reveals that only 13 percent of employeesand supervisors and only 6 percent of executives consider their firms performanceappraisal process useful (People IQ, 2005). Another survey shows that almost50 percent of executives consider their performance appraisal process to be more or

    less effective, while 15 percent consider it little to not effective at all (Mercer, 2002).Similarly, a recent survey indicates that close to 60 percent of the participants rate theirorganization a C or worse on the effectiveness of their performance management(WorldatWork and Sibson Consulting, 2007).

    This paper focuses on one of the most frequently cited problems in the performancemanagement process: the prevalence of performance rating distortion (Bernardin andVillanova, 1986; Bretz et al., 1992; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). So far, most priorresearch has focused on ways to reduce inaccuracy in performance ratings.

    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

    www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    273

    Qualitative Research in Organizations

    and Management: An International

    Journal

    Vol. 4 No. 3, 2009

    pp. 273-293

    q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    1746-5648

    DOI 10.1108/17465640911002545

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    2/21

    These approaches usually include evaluation forms which provide an exhaustivedescription of the behaviours to observe and evaluate. They also include trainingprograms intended to improve raters skills with regards to accumulating, coding andintegrating performance-related information. Despite extensive research into these

    issues, there has been very little progress toward improving rater accuracy (Ilgen et al.,1993; Maroney and Buckley, 1992; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). In contrast, Newmanet al. (2004) conclude that, despite 30 years of research, no evidence substantiates theunderlying hypothesis or belief that the reliability and accuracy of appraisal ratingsdepends upon which rating format is used. In fact, the choice of a performance appraisalformat has only a minor effect on the accuracy of performance ratings (Borman, 1991;Bretz et al., 1992; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). Spencer and Keeping (2005) also criticize theresearch that focuses on rater ability and comprehension of the cognitive processesunderlying rating behaviour for not having contributed much toward solving problemsof rating distortion and leniency in practice. Finally, all efforts to train raters are usuallydisappointing, as the effects of rater training on appraisal accuracy dissipate over time(Cleveland and Murphy, 1992; Latham, 1986, 1988).

    Many researchers agree that on thewhole, prior research fails to pay attention to ratermotivation and the organizational context in which appraisals occur (Dipboye, 1985;Murphy and Cleveland, 1995; Wood and Marshall, 2008). This study attempts toovercome this limitation by investigating behavioural, social and affective componentsin order to get a more realistic picture of the context surrounding the performanceappraisal process. More precisely, this study addresses the following research question:Which contextual characteristics influence managers motivation to distort theperformance evaluation ratings of their subordinates? Acquiring a better understandingof manager motivation to accurately evaluate their subordinates is quite important,given that top managers invest considerable financial, material, and human resourceswhen developing and managing their performance appraisal system and training their

    managers with respect to it. Moreover, many authors have called for more research onthe rating context and rater motivation determinants on rating outcomes (Levy andWilliams, 2004; Spencer and Keeping, 2005; Tziner et al., 2005). The absence of fieldresearch on voluntary distortion of performance ratings may be explained by the fact itis difficult to enlist the cooperation of managers on a topic associated with anorganizational sanction or one potentially biased by a social desirability factor (Morinet al., 1999).

    MethodsThis field study innovates by adopting an interview-based qualitative approach whenexamining managers discourse related to the performance appraisal process. In ourstudy, we conducted in-depth interviews with a subsample of 15 out of 85 students

    enrolled in an MBA program at a North American university who had completed aquestionnaire on performance management. This subsample was composed of membersof the two extreme groups who claimed to be either not at all motivated or verymotivated in conducting employee performance appraisals. This subsample of15 students who express two opposite attitudes toward performance appraisalsconstitutes one of the strengths of our study in that the aim was to analyze theirdeterminants. Given the explanatory nature of this study, the number of 15 participantsappears sufficient to analyze the variety of perceptions. Moreover, the fact that the

    QROM4,3

    274

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    3/21

    participants work for different companies and were interviewed outside their workplaceencouraged frankness and openness while reducing the risk of bias related to socialdesirability.

    It is important to observe that all respondents had at least two years of experience in a

    managerial position in which they had evaluated the performance of at least oneemployee. With a median age of 34, the managers had, on average, six years ofexperience in their organization, including three years in their current job position.Typically, participants supervised five employees and had conducted performanceevaluations for four years. Of the 15 participating managers, six were male and ninewere female respondents and they worked for organizations of various sizes: twoworked in organizations with between one and 99 employees, three in companies withbetween 100 and 249 employees, two in firms with between 250 and 999 employees and,finally, eight in companies with over 1,000 employees.

    Each semi-structured interview (with participants) lasted an average of one hourand was tape-recorded for future transcription. The interviews focused on factorsaffecting participant motivation and the motivation of other managers to evaluate theirsubordinates performance. The interviews also addressed matters of motivation:What could be done to increase or decrease their own motivation or that of theircolleagues in order to carefully evaluate their subordinates performance?

    All interview transcripts were subjected to a systematic ethnographic contentanalysis (using ETHNOGRAPHtm software) to assist us in organizing, searching, andsorting coded data. Ethnographic content analysis is characterized by the reflectiveand interactive nature of the investigator, concepts, data collection, and analysis.While variables, established prior to the analysis and compiled and categorized by theresearchers merely guide the study, other categories were expected to emerge from thedata (Altheide, 1987; Manning and Cullum-Swan, 1994). Data was analyzed using aprocess of reduction and interpretation. Text lines from each interview were

    numbered and two co-researchers independently reviewed all transcripts.Transcripts were then identified and split into segments representing topic-units.Concurrently, these co-researchers also identified each segment with appropriateestablished or emerging codes. Once the initial coding task was completed, allsegments of text addressing the same topic were grouped and labelled by a key wordor expression that captured the underlying issue. Such labelling was based on aconsensus agreement among the researchers. For each quote, the code and line numberwere then entered into ETHNOGRAPHe. Moreover, categories, and links betweenand among particular concepts were identified in the analysis (Silverman, 1993;Tesch, 1993).

    Results analysis and discussion

    Our categories of results are presented on the basis of six major perspectives that havebeen put forward over the years within the performance appraisal literature and thatemerged from our data analyses. Table I maps the main theoretical perspectives withrespect to performance management that can be retained to summarize managersopinions and answers. When interrogated on the determinants of their motivation toevaluate employees performance at work, managers express opinions that can beassociated with each of these perspectives: psychometric, affective, political, strategic,cultural, justice, and symbolic.

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    275

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    4/21

    Perspective Assumptions Implications

    Rational and

    psychometric

    The appraisal system is a

    measurement system. True orobjective levels of individualperformance exist and these levelscan be subjectively assessed, albeitwith errorsRaters are passive judges who (a)have no particular intention orpersonal agendas and (b) havefallible capabilities to encode, store,recall and assess employeesperformanceInaccurate performance ratings havenegative impacts on employees workmotivation, efforts, job satisfaction,

    perception of justice, etc.Accurate appraisal ratings are usefulnot only for performance managementbut also for many human resourceactivities (i.e. validating selectionprocedures, training and development,salary increases, layoffs, termination,feedback)

    Accuracy is the main criterion for

    assessing the effectiveness ofappraisal practices and it isconsidered the primary goal thatboth practitioners and researchersare trying to achieveThere is a need to improve appraisalmethods and raters competencies inorder to improve performance ratingaccuracyIndividual performance standardsshould be clearly defined using acareful and systematic approachwhich relies heavily on job analysisdata, aversion to traits and

    promotion of behavioural appraisal

    Affective Hot cognitions such as affection,trust, emotions, mood andpersonality traits significantlyinfluence performance ratings andother performance managementactions (i.e. training, rewards)

    Rated performance is not only theresult of more positive leader-member exchange, but the perceivedperformance may contribute indetermining the quality of thatexchange

    Affection is a basis for determiningin-group and out-group membershipwhich affects both performance

    judgments and raters attributionsAffection develops as a result ofemployees past performance ratherthan functioning solely as adeterminant of performance ratings

    Political Power is the property of socialrelationships and workenvironments. Individuals are self-interested rationalists who use powerto get control of scarce resourcesAppraisal is a goal-oriented activitywhere actors look to maximizebenefits over costs, given the contextand agendaRaters intent is often not to makeaccurate assessments of rateeperformance, but to actively pursuetheir own goals

    The question is whether politicalappraisal manipulations can betolerated or controlled. Whenperformance appraisal politics areconsistent with organizational goalsand contribute to effectiveness, theyshould be considered adaptive.Political strategies that enhance theidentification of excellent performersor motivate employees to improvetheir performance benefit theorganization. Trying to eliminateappraisal politics may be negative if

    (continued)

    Table I.Mapping the maintheoretical perspectivesin relation to performancemanagement

    QROM4,3

    276

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    5/21

    Perspective Assumptions Implications

    appraisal politics have developedinto an effort to accomplish

    organizational goals in spite ofpoorly designed, rigid or ineffectiveappraisal systems

    Contextual, strategicand cultural

    Performance management is broaderin scope and explicitly links businessstrategy and organizational values toindividual performancePerformance management is key toensuring organizations keep theiredge by focusing efforts on high-value behaviours and outcomes thatexecute strategyOrganizational capabilities thosethat underlie an organizationsability to execute business strategies

    can be created and enhanced bycarefully constructing performancedimensions and effectivenesscriteria, while refocusing them asbusiness strategies change over time

    Top management should use theperformance management system tocommunicate those behaviours andoutcomes needed to drive criticalbusiness success. They should alsoshift the emphasis onto behavioursand outcomes from year to year byrevising the performance standardsIt is important to change the view ofperformance appraisal from anemphasis on measurement to anemphasis on content andcommunicationThe performance managementsystem is a critical tool that isnecessary to increase awareness ofthe value of employee contributionsto the organizations success. It isalso needed to create a dialoguebetween employees and managers,which can enhance employeecontributions and a firms success

    Organizational justice The focus of appraisal should not beon measurement, but rather on the

    extent to which performanceprocedures and outcomes are seen as

    just, consistent or appropriatePerceived organizational justice isimportant in all three interrelatedprocesses of performancemanagement: first, systemdevelopment; second, appraisalprocesses; and finally, feedbackprocessesPerceptions of fairness arise fromevaluations of the outcomes received(distributive or outcome fairness), theprocedures used to determine thoseoutcomes (procedural fairness), andthe way in which decision-makingprocedures were implemented andexplained (interpersonal orinformational fairness)

    Issues relevant to fairness and dueprocess are the most salient factors in

    judicial decisions, whereas morescientific issues of validation andtypes of rating instruments werevirtually ignoredEmployees will be more motivated toimprove their performance when therating process is perceived as fairFair appraisal processes andoutcomes have many positiveimpacts: namely, increased trust insupervisors, commitment to theorganization and job satisfaction.They also reduce grievances andturnover, etc.Procedural and interpersonalfairness are particularly importantwhen evaluations and decisions (i.e.:outcomes) are negative

    Institutional orsymbolic

    Individuals seek legitimacy andconformity to external norms or

    Organizations mimic the actions ofother organizations when adopting

    (continued) Table I.

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    277

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    6/21

    Psychometric perspectiveAs shown in Table I, a psychometric perspective presumes performance appraisal is arational, neutral, and passive process whereby managers seek to objectively measurethe performance of their subordinates. According to this perspective, if there is bias orerrors in performance ratings, it is mainly because supervisors are either not trained toallocate them or do not have the appropriate appraisal tools. A psychometricperspective insists on training and methods. In our study, many managers remarksreflect this perspective.

    For example, several participants claim that the lack of competencies andinterpersonal relations skills mostly in terms of giving negative feedback decreases supervisors motivation to evaluate their subordinates performance. As onemanager put it:

    Its surprising we are not taught how to evaluate well [. . .] they were not given the tools to doit properly. It is important to [. . .] choose your words properly when you evaluate someone.There are many ways to tell someone that they are rotten, that there is room for improvement.

    Similarly, another said:You have to find the right way to say things. As much as possible, you shouldnt avoidproblems out of fear of hurting the other person, but rather find a way to broach the problem.Clearly, there is no problem communicating good and fine things or talking about peoplesgood sides. Talking about bad aspects creates problems even though it is important to talkabout it and you have to take the time to find words to say it.

    In addition, many participants consider performance evaluation forms and methods tobe a source of frustration because of their length, irrelevance, the redundancy of certain

    Perspective Assumptions Implications

    ways of doing things, and theymanage impressions so they appear

    rational and efficientInstitutional and mimetic pressures(e.g. laws, standards, regulations)lead organizations to adopt similarmanagement practices over timeThe focus of appraisal is onmanagement of meaning rather thanmeasurement. Raters attempt tomanage the meaning of rateeperformance and the meaning ofconsequent evaluations. They do thisthrough feedback and organizationaloutcomes associated with appraisalTypically, ratee performance is afuzzy or ambiguous construct subjectto interpretation: What is valuedmore or less depends uponindividuals and contexts

    performance management systemsbecause they look like a rational tool

    used to increase firm performanceExecutives uncertain about theappropriate response to pressuresrelated to their performancemanagement systems benchmarkwith other firms, particularly thoseperceived to be more legitimate orsuccessfulAll actors should regard theemployee performance managementsystems as being equitable and

    justified. However, the presumedpositive impact of performanceevaluation systems on firmperformance is a question ofimpression management

    Table I.

    QROM4,3

    278

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    7/21

    criteria, etc. Several managers believe that the performance evaluation method to betoo heavy or too complex and that it leads to errors, bias and manipulation ofperformance ratings. For example, one manager said:

    It is difficult to complete a three-page form where you have to evaluate [performance] relativeto objectives that should have been specified. Planning work objectives for the following yearand completing another form that covers the development plan of the employee for the next12 months, not to mention that you need to follow up this exercise in mid-year, is far toodemanding. The system is bloated.

    Similarly, another participant said:

    The performance evaluation form is almost 30 pages long. It asks the same questions for allemployees, regardless of their duties or position. The form is unsatisfactory [. . .] For example,they talk about dress code, appearance, stuff that shocked people very much.

    Participants seem to prefer a method based on the determination of performanceobjectives or on the observation of critical incidents, which permits them to compile

    information on employee performance easily and regularly throughout the year. Asexpressed by one manager: I find it motivating to use the famous loose-leaf sheets onwhich you can regularly jot down something and put it in the employees file. Finally,some managers complained about the fact that they are forced to play with theirratings to satisfy a particular predetermined distribution:

    It bothers me to have to allocate our employees. [. . .] I have 20 employees and a chart with25 squares. My employees have to cluster in the four squares in the centre for the averagerating to be good.

    Affective perspectiveAs summarized in Table I, according to this perspective, affective and emotional

    factors cannot be ignored because they affect performance rating accuracy (Cardy andDobbins, 1986; Lefkowitz, 2000; Tsui and Barry, 1986; Judge and Ferris, 1993). Forexample, the supervisor-subordinate exchange theory postulates that the supervisordevelops distinct work relations with each subordinate; each supervisor-subordinatedyad corresponds to an interpersonal interaction style likely to influence performancerating accuracy (Liden and Graen, 1980).

    In this study, one manager had this to say:

    When an employee is good, he will be liked a little better for sure, and it is more motivating toevaluate him. You tend to put this employee on a pedestal. I try to control it but I cant saythat it doesnt influence me.

    It also seems more difficult to give negative feedback or even to intervene in cases

    where employees have personal problems and managers might be more likely to avoidthem. In such a case, as one manager put it: [ . . .] it is difficult to sit down face to facewith an employee and deal with the tears, personal problems, and with all the littlefamily squabbles [. . .]. Another said:

    At times, I had to give extremely negative feedback that could have encouraged me not to beas open. However, if you look at the long-term results, I think its preferable to lance the boil.I dont want the problem to fester, I prefer to tackle it immediately and give a lot offeedback [. . .]

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    279

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    8/21

    Many of the managers confirm that supervisors feelings towards their subordinatesinvariably influence the evaluation ratings: the better the quality of thesupervisor-subordinate relationship, the higher the performance rating given to thetarget employee. For example, as one participant reported:

    Some people have become my friends and it is not much fun to tell them: Listen, what youare doing annoys me. This has to change or well have to do something about it. Thesethings are very emotional. It is difficult to be rational in performance evaluations.

    Inversely, a conflictual relationship might prompt undervaluation of the performanceratings. As one manager asserted:

    When you have been working in a company for a while, there are games that are played andsome people are antagonistic towards you because they have given you low blows for years.You are then less inclined to try to help them.

    Political perspective

    As summarized in Table I, the political perspective implies that the employeeperformance appraisal process is a deliberate attempt by managers to satisfy eithertheir personal interests or goals or those of their department and/or subordinates(Cleveland and Murphy, 1992; Harris, 1994; Longenecker et al., 1987; Murphy andCleveland, 1995; Murphy et al., 2004; Wong and Kwong, 2007).

    In our study, manager discourse confirms the important role of the raters objectivesin the performance evaluation process. These objectives can be oriented towardmaintaining or improving subordinate motivation and performance, maintaining agood work climate, safeguarding subordinates interests or attaining personal goalsand retaining and expelling employees.

    For example, all respondents say they strive to maintain or increase theirsubordinates motivation at work when evaluating their performance. One managersaid: I like saying to someone: You are doing a good job [

    . . .

    ]. I prefer to be diplomatic. Itry in particular to avoid sapping an employees motivation. Many managers reportthat this objective can lead them to overvalue ratings issued to their subordinates byemphasizing the positive aspects of their performance, maximizing rewards orconsidering employee progress. As expressed by one respondent:

    The annual evaluation reflects a complete year. But if you met the employee six months agoto discuss a problem and he then solved it by correcting his behaviour or attitude [. . .] At theend of the year managers do not want to return to the subject and report again on the first fewmonths that were not very good.

    Analyses of manager interviews also reveal that their quest to maintain or improve thequality of working relations within their team may influence performance appraisal.

    Some supervisors say they find it difficult to distinguish between professional andpersonal relations. For example, managers who maintain good relations with employeesreport that they are less inclined to evaluate and provide feedback on their performance.

    Some supervisors even try to defend the interests of their subordinates whenevaluating their performance. In other words, they try to optimize the rewards foremployees or minimize the negative consequences of the appraisal. As one of themanagers put it: We are ready to tell them verbally, but we wont write bad thingsbecause we know it will be inserted in the file. The desire to maximize rewards,

    QROM4,3

    280

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    9/21

    particularly salary increases, also justifies managers overvaluation of their employeesperformance ratings. One manager pointed out how the allocation of bonuses can leadthem to be inaccurate:

    There are performance bonuses, but they are limited and cannot be given to everyone.Relative to the group average, one person may stand out, but as there are many groups onthe evaluation board, the best person in a group may not be the best when you comparethat person to the overall average. All the managers then try to put their employees firstand it becomes a real exercise in confrontation, combined with an auction or a slavemarket.

    Another respondent painted a similar picture with regard to the merit payenvironment:

    [. . .] when we evaluate employees and we find them good, we will weigh our words carefullybefore giving them a lower rating [. . .]. We dont want this to penalize the employee when itstime for a raise. As salaries are low, the employee needs an increase.

    Some respondents report that they take into account the impact their performanceevaluations have on their own image with top managers. In their view, executives tendto see the performance ratings they allocate to their subordinates as a reflection of theirown performance as a manager. As one participant claimed:

    Some managers have the impression that its their job that is seen through the evaluationsthey give. They are afraid to show that they are unable to manage their personnel or to showthat something is going wrong with their personnel.

    Therefore, they have an incentive to give good ratings if they want to be perceived asgood leaders who are deserving of promotions and/or pay incentives. According to onemanager:

    As a manager of a group of very efficient people, my evaluation should be good and my

    reputation should be good. If my group performs better, I can improve my chances of gettinga promotion.

    Finally, according to some respondents, the desire to keep good performers within thedepartment by overvaluing their performance and to encourage problem employees toleave by undervaluing their appraisals can also explain rating distortion. As onerespondent explained:

    I dont want to lose the good employees. And if they do good work, I will not deliberatelydepict them as a superstar so that I wont lose them. On the other hand, at times I have wantedto get rid of an employee so I gave someone a better evaluation so they would move to anothergroup, and I could pass my problem along to another manager.

    Contextual, strategic and cultural perspectivesAs stated in Table I, from a contextual perspective, the ultimate objective of aperformance appraisal system is to facilitate the implementation of the organizationalstrategy, to support organizational values and to improve organizationalperformance through the convergence of individual and team performances(Schneier et al., 1991).

    In our study, many respondents were dismayed by the lack of alignment andharmony between performance evaluation activities and those related to organizational

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    281

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    10/21

    objectives, strategy, and values. Some claimed that it is difficult to mobilize theirsubordinates because they do not know the companys success factors. For example:

    We dont know where we are situated in the company; this can considerably sap managersmotivation to evaluate their employees. They are unable to motivate their team because theythemselves dont know where theyre at in the company.

    Participants also emphasized the impact multiple transformations and corporatereorganization have on their motivation to evaluate employees and on the time theyhave to evaluate an increasing number of subordinates. For example, mergers andacquisitions may have a negative impact on the accuracy of performance appraisals:

    There were problems of integration following a merger three or four years ago [. . .] I recognizethe people that were there before the merger [. . .] Although I ask them to do the same thing asthe others, I will probably be slightly more tolerant.

    Moreover, when managers are required to supervise an increasing number of employeesdue to successive downsizings of hierarchical levels, it becomes a real challenge for them

    to find the time to appraise their employees individual performances with sufficientcare. As one manager explained: With the levelling of structures, managers mustmanage more employees, files, and operations. [. . .] Managers have less time to managetheir personnel and they follow up less often. Another participant expressed a similaropinion:

    [. . .] with downsizing, supervisors have many responsibilities to bear, and making a goodperformance evaluation takes time. In times of crisis and reorganization, it is difficult to askpeople to invest themselves in their evaluations.

    According to the respondents, the more importance top executives place on personnelmanagement, the more they provide concrete support for performance managementprocesses and the more clearly they communicate the business objectives, the more

    managers are motivated to evaluate the performance of their subordinates. From amanagers point of view:

    Here, supervisors are motivated to do employee performance evaluations well because theyhave a lot to gain. [. . .] They try to have an open-door management style and transparency.Executives meet with employees periodically to explain to them why they have made suchand such a decision.

    Another respondent offered the opposite perspective:

    One year ago, they tried to implement a performance evaluation system but it didnt workbecause the owners did not see the need for it. [ . . .] We didnt have the support of topmanagement.

    Moreover, the hierarchical supervisor acts as a role model and has a predominant effecton a managers motivation to evaluate. As expressed by one participant: Most of mycolleagues do not pay attention to performance evaluations. My supervisor does noteven evaluate my own performance. Theres a type of I dont care culture. Similarly,another respondent said:

    If several managers report to you, you have to begin by evaluating the performance of yourown managers before conveying to them that it is important to evaluate their employeesperformance.

    QROM4,3

    282

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    11/21

    Procedural justice perspectiveAs described in Table I, this perspective asserts that a performance appraisal processshould valueemployees and aim to treat them with dignity and fairness (Folger etal., 1992).

    In our study, many respondents seemed more concerned about whether the ratings

    were accepted and perceived as accurate and fair, as opposed to solely worrying abouttheir accuracy. Some managers believe that clearand predetermined criteria are importantin order not only to be fair, but also to facilitate the performance evaluation task:

    If your objectives are clearly determined and accurate, this reduces subjectivity. [. . .] You areable to say to someone look what youre doing or look what you did, and to tell themwhether they did it at 75 percent or at 125 percent. It makes our work much easier. Thecriterion is already clearly defined. There is an appendix to the form that defines and givesexamples of each criterion.

    Overall, participants believe it is more equitable to give evaluations on an ongoingbasis. As one participant said:

    You have to perform evaluations regularly or at least a few times during the year [. . .] not justat the end of the year. If you need to realign, it gives the employee a chance to change somehabits or improve in certain areas to achieve results.

    In addition, it seems that participation in the development and implementation of theperformance appraisal system motivates managers to rate performance. This approachallows managers to better assume their role as rater and coach; appraisal accuracyshould improve accordingly. As one manager put it:

    I find it very frustrating when I have to apply a performance management system that wasdeveloped without my input and that is totally unrelated or irrelevant to the reality that I have tomanage.

    Institutional or symbolic perspectiveAccording to institutional or symbolic theory, firms respond to environmentalpressures by endorsing commonly accepted ways of doing business (Meyer andRowan, 1977). As indicated in Table I, such a perspective defines performanceevaluation as a rationalized institutional myth in which the presumed positive impactof performance evaluation systems on firm performance can be considered a questionof impression management (Pfeffer, 1981; Villanova and Bernardin, 1989).

    In this study, many managers claimed they did not see the value or importance ofattentively completing the performance evaluations of their employees. They do so inorder to appear legitimate in the eyes of investors and stakeholders. As expressed byone participant: The employee performance evaluation is like a chore, like somethingyou have to do just to follow the rules and meet the standards. Some participants

    explained that they had better things to do than repeatedly tell their employees thesame things that they would invariably ignore. You just have to restart the tape, theywill continue to do any old thing and work any old way.

    The value of employee performance evaluations seems to be particularlyquestionable for managers of unionized personnel. One manager said:

    Here, we have collective agreements and job security and if an employee does not want toimprove, they can just sit back and let a lot of time go by before something serious enoughhappens that you can toss the person out.

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    283

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    12/21

    Similarly, another said:

    If you work with unionized employees and they feel that you are discriminating against themor that you have ranked them as inferior within the group, you will be blacklisted [. . .] Thatsone reason managers are not motivated to evaluate performance.

    Other respondents question the real value or importance of evaluating the performanceof their employees if human resource specialists do not follow up and do not seem totake ratings into account. As one participant put it:

    I am motivated to do evaluations if I know something will come of it. If its just to put thingsinto the file, I wont make the time. And thats not what I want.

    While another one said:

    The human resources department staff does not seem to perform enough follow-up. They sayits important and you have to follow the policy. But when they do not follow up on things,they contradict themselves. I wonder if my evaluations actually end up in the files and ifanyone considers them important. This discourages me.

    Several participants claimed that the absence of rewards or punishments associatedwith precise performance evaluations can lead to distorted performance ratings. Oneparticipant put it this way:

    There is no reward or positive feed-back associated with evaluations. We must do it becauseit is part of our obligations, but it is not like doing a particular project. [. . .] However, I neversaw anyone receive additional compensation for having done better performance evaluations.It goes unrecognized.

    Another participant said:

    You are motivated to do something when you get something in return: joy, money or somekind of gratification. For a manager, what is the gratification associated with evaluating

    employee performance?

    According to them, if the organization were to make raters accountable for the qualityof their evaluations, their motivation to evaluate accurately would increase. Forexample, one manager claimed:

    Doing employee performance evaluations is not something that is very visible. [. . .]. You dothe evaluation and you never get feed-back on the evaluations [. . .] If they took into accountthe quality of my evaluations of my subordinates in my own evaluation, it would beincredibly motivating.

    Another reported:

    My evaluations were always re-evaluated by my immediate supervisor [. . .]. It motivates you

    to prepare your file well, thats for sure. As evaluations are attached to the employees files inthe human resources department, this encourages us to evaluate well.

    These remarks are consistent with findings showing that organizations rarely adoptconcrete actions to reward accurate appraisal or to punish those who distortevaluations (Napier and Latham, 1986; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995).

    Finally, supervisors who value performance evaluation believe it helps employeesto improve their performance and, ultimately, the organizations results. As expressedby one respondent:

    QROM4,3

    284

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    13/21

    Performance evaluations can help determine the guidelines and objectives for someone. Theyalso let you have a discussion with an employee put in writing. Performance evaluationsshould be used for this: to ensure employees provide a more satisfactory performance in orderto attain the companys objectives.

    Studys contributions and implicationsThis study offers the following three main contributions from a methodological,theoretical, and practical point of view.

    Methodological contributions: qualitative studies contribute to reduce the gap betweenresearch and practice in performance appraisal management. Many authors havehighlighted the gaps between research and practice when it comes to performanceappraisal management, as well as the sterility and disappointing results of priorresearch efforts, mostly all obtained from lab experiments (Banks and Murphy, 1985;Bretz et al., 1992; Maroney and Buckley, 1992). According to them, laboratoryexperiment results are not applicable to organizational settings for many reasons; they

    eliminate or control the contextual factors (e.g. time pressure to evaluate, time betweenbehaviour observation and appraisal) that raters require to rate in the absence of anyreal context. Similarly, lab experiments strive to create a controlled and neutralenvironment, neglecting to consider the numerous emotional and political issues (e.g.interdependency, daily or interpersonal relationships between rater and ratees,self-interest). In addition, experiments concentrate on the analysis of raters privateratings (often on video), while managers in a firm are regularly required tocommunicate their ratings to others (employees, supervisors, human resourceprofessional). In fact, performance ratings provided in cognitive experiments aretypically inconsequential to raters themselves, or anyone else for that matter, which isnot at all the case in a real work setting. In addition, laboratory studies often limit thenature of the information transmitted to raters on relevant issues. Meanwhile, in a real

    organizational setting, they need to distinguish irrelevant data from relevant dataconcerning employee performance. Finally, many lab or survey studies are conductedto investigate the impact of supervisors mood or traits, or even the quality of theirrelationships with their subordinates on the performance appraisal process. However,their external validity is often low, since they also manipulate performance levelseasily and neglect many of the important issues that characterize real work settings,such as the interdependency between actors, the future superiorysubordinaterelationship, the interpersonal impacts of performance appraisal and so on. Thelaboratory setting would seem particularly unsuited for a study such as ours, aimed atidentifying raters goals and motives in performance appraisal, or demonstrating theirimportance for appraisals, because many of these goals and motives grow out of needsto manage work groups over time and depend upon strong feelings about ratees and the

    organization. None of these conditions is usually present in a lab study (DeNisi, 1996).This field study innovated not only by interrogating managers or raters themselves,

    but also by doing so using an interview-based qualitative approach rather than aquestionnaire. To date, very little research has adopted such a qualitative design withrespect to performance appraisals. One exception is Longenecker et al. (1987), whofound that appraisal ratings are highly affected by the desire to please employees andavoid conflict and by the need to orient future behaviour. In doing so, our resultsallowed us to tap a wealth of information relevant to the appraisal context, particularly

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    285

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    14/21

    from the agents who actively apply the appraisal process, i.e. the managers themselves,who were willing to report their motives, goals, thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.Lindlof (1995, p. 234) summarizes this orientation here: If we want to know howsomething is done and what it means, we have to know how it is talked about. In line

    with the structuration perspective (Gidden, 1984), our results provide insight intothe way managers construct reality and the significance they give to the performanceappraisal program within their organization.

    In summary, the methodological contributions of our study can be seen in light ofthe lack of published qualitative work (Marchel and Owens, 2007) and given that thesharp intensification of qualitative research in psychology that took place in the 1990s(Rennie et al., 2002) thus far does not seem to have been observed in performanceappraisal research. Our study thus responds to recent calls for more qualitativeresearch in the OB domain which can be sensitive to the full range of contextual levers(and their interactions) and sensitive to the full range of behaviours and attitudes thatcontext might affect, often working backwards to make inferences about the situation(Johns, 2006). Our investigation departed from conventional questionnairemethodology or the lab study approach by employing qualitative research in orderto give the practitioners an opportunity to share their understanding and views of theappraisal process. Our results, by highlighting the urge influence of the social contextof performance appraisal, confirmed that qualitative research of this type is critical inorder to further our understanding of rater decision processes and reduce the currentgap between research and practice in performance appraisal.

    Theoretical contribution: researchers must embrace or integrate various theoreticalperspectives (rational, affective, political, strategic, cultural, justice, and symbolic) giventhat managers motivation to evaluate subordinate performance cannot be analyzedoutside of the social context. As previously mentioned, up to this point in the history ofperformance appraisal research, the majority of work undertaken has clearly

    concentrated either on issues of rating formats/scales or cognitive errors.Consequently, in much research on performance appraisal, researchers have ignoredthe social context in which various rating scales are applied. Moreover, in most studies,scholars seem to assume that managers want to provide conventionally accurateratings, desire no other outcomes, and have no other goals in making ratings, all ofwhich are dubious assumptions.

    One studys results clearly confirm that performance appraisal takes place in asocial context and that context plays a major role in the effectiveness of that processand in how participants react to that process (Farr and Levy, 2007; Levy and Williams,2004).

    More precisely, our study shows that, when interrogated on the determinants of theirmotivation to evaluate employees performance at work, managers express opinions

    that can be associated with each of these perspectives: psychometric, affective, political,strategic, cultural, justice, and symbolic. These different theoretical frameworks are notin conflict. Rather, they provide complementary insights that contribute to a betterunderstanding of the performance appraisal processes, with no single one providing acomprehensive explanation of performance ratings in practice. Consequently, anintegrated theoretical perspective is required for a better understanding of performanceappraisal. The traditional psychometric perspective, with its excessive focus onmeasurement accuracy, pays too little attention to concerns about fairness perceptions,

    QROM4,3

    286

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    15/21

    rater and ratee reactions, and organizational implementation issues. Consequently, ourresults confirm that the call for a more balanced approach in terms of the issuessuggested by the various appraisal perspectives might assist in its greater use (Farr and

    Jacobs, 2006).

    One particularly interesting study finding shows that employee performanceevaluations real function as a procedure lies not in the rational claims upheld in themanagerial literature, but rather in the more diffuse area of meaning management.In doing so, this study shifts the traditional focus of employee performance appraisalresearch toward a social context. Indeed, results confirm the theory of socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) which depicts employee performanceevaluation as a rationalized institutional and political myth (Meyer and Rowan, 1977).Employee performance evaluation is institutional because it relies on beliefs, norms andrituals through which the members of an organization create and sustain viewsregarding the value of one employee over another. Employee performance appraisal isrationalized because it takes the form of rules, forms and procedures. Employeeperformance evaluation is a myth because it is a process based on beliefs, which cannotbe tested objectively. Our interviews show performance appraisals provide a broadrange of work rules and expectations that guide the efforts of actors and make sense outof doing tasks assigned by others. Here, the worker will be measured on specificperformance, which is thus important. Without the rules, employees may conclude thatnothing 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 tothe vast number of tasks performed. Without appraisals, actors would be taking a leapinto chaos.

    In our study, participants frequently argued that appraisals are much too subjectiveand overly influenced by supervisors prejudices and shifting values to be an accurate

    reflection of a workers contribution. Although they acknowledged various appraisalshortcomings, participants asserted that rating provides the best available basis forrewarding performance through a merit-based reward structure. Curiously, managersand employees continue to accept appraisal systems even while recognizing that theprocess is fraught with inaccuracies. Under such circumstances, continued reliance onthe formal appraisal process could be explained by reasons proposed by Kellough andLu (1993) in support of the persistence of merit pay in the US public sector. First,performance appraisal is symbolically and politically attractive, and corresponds to abusiness stereotype. Such management programs could be seen as a way to make allemployees more accountable for achieving high quality performance at work. Second,performance evaluation is also perceived as a hierarchical control tool that correspondsto classical concepts of good management. Specifically, those who control the

    performance appraisal process also control the distribution of awards. Performanceappraisal thus becomes a means of strengthening the organizational hierarchy.

    Furthermore, institutional theory suggests that increased attention given to issuesof employee performance management puts pressure on organizations to enhanceexternal legitimacy and satisfy internal constituencies. However, the implementationof performance appraisal policies alone will not address the inner workings of theorganization. As illustrated, if performance appraisals are simply added on to theexisting management culture, supervisors and employees may not see the full merits of

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    287

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    16/21

    the policies, which will therefore remain underutilized. This seems to be the case for thesupervisors in this study, many of whom expressed mixed feelings about the policiesthemselves, as well as their implementation and utilization.

    Practical contributions: managers motivation to evaluate subordinate performance

    is less about the technique used and more about leadership support, execution andoverall performance culture. The findings of our study have several implications fororganizations. Notably, to ensure the optimal success of a performance managementsystem, there are a number of prerequisites, including the quality of the evaluation form,the competency and motivation of managers in evaluating and communicatingperformances, and an organizational context that is conducive to performance appraisal.In other words, while a adequate form is certainly important, what a successfulperformance management system needs even more is a willingness to spend the timeand effort (and, therefore, money) necessary to promote and explain the system to staffby means of regular training activities and communication. Performance evaluationpractices and methods must be perceived as being relevant and easy to understand andapply from the perspective of the personnel. The motivation of managers to evaluateemployee performance is also dependent on having the clear support of theorganizations executives, who must set an example.

    In other words, companies must make sure that their performance managementprogram is not perceived as just another program cooked up by human resourcesprofessionals, but rather as a priority of upper management. It is important to foster aculture of feedback and of communication of the organizations strategy, objectives andvalues and to clarify the strategic impact and influence of this process on the other humanresources management processes (e.g. development, career, selection). Accordingly, therole of raters is a crucial one, particularly with regard to their capacity to evaluateperformance and their motivation to do so. In addition, it is important to consult andinvolve executives in the development, management and review of performance

    management programs. It is also essential that upper management rewards managerswho are capable of evaluating the performance of their employees, as well as taking intoaccount how managers carry out their performance evaluation duties at the time whenthey, in turn, are evaluated by their immediate superiors.

    Some of these implications are consistent with another recent survey of over 550human resources professionals, which shows overwhelmingly that the main challengefaced by organizations is that managers are unable to have difficult performancediscussions (Kochanski and Becom, 2008; WorldatWork and Sibson Consulting, 2007).More precisely, 71 percent of organizations say their managers lack courage to havedifficult performance discussions. This survey of HR professionals also shows thatemployees perception of performance as an HR process (rather than an executivemandate) along with poor goal-setting ranked as the second and third greatest

    challenges, respectively.More specifically, if supervisors, executives and human resources professionals

    are aware of the subtle yet pervasive role communication plays in the performanceappraisal process, perhaps they can address these issues in a proactive and productivemanner. One recommendation is to modify the discourse of performance appraisalpolicies. It can be argued that once performance appraisal systems are formallyinstituted, support for the implementation and application of such procedures shouldbe clearly communicated to employees. Managers should understand the reasoning

    QROM4,3

    288

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    17/21

    behind these policies and be taught specific skills related to providing feedback. Atthe organizational level, communicative support from executives should be moreeffective for the implementation of performance appraisal policies. And in order tominimize negativity among managers, human resources departments should make it

    clear that these programs are not intended to be burdensome. Some of the advantagesof performance appraisal should be communicated to workers and employees. Forexample, training sessions could illustrate the positive aspects of the performanceappraisal process, while providing a realistic overview of its limitations.

    Limits and future researchThis study is subject to a number of limitations linked to the use of a qualitativemethodological approach and certain sample characteristics. Specifically, the fact thatwe conducted our interviews with managers who were all enrolled in an MBA programmay also have affected their answers. Moreover, it is possible that managers opinionsresulted from a process of legitimacy, justification or rationalization (Staw, 1980; Weick,1979), or perhaps even the manner in which top executives chose to justify theirdecisions. This study doesnt compare what managers think with what they actually doin practice over a long period (their actual ratings distribution). Finally, more in-depthinterviews with managers would probably be helpful to better understand this topic. Inaddition, interviews with other actors, such as human resources professionals orexecutives, would be important to provide insight from different actors points of view.

    Accordingly, future studies on performance appraisal policy could benefit from thetheoretical framework of structuration (Giddens, 1984). Our results show that putting aperformance appraisal policy on paper is no guarantee that it will be followed in themanner intended. In order to create a supportive climate for performance appraisal,attention must be given to structures that facilitate policy implementation and

    utilization. Consequently, future researchers should investigate performance appraisalsystems through the lens of communication. From this perspective, the role executivesand human resources professionals play, along with their discourse, must be seriouslyconsidered in performance appraisal policy implementation. We can then addressquestions such as how executives and human resources professionals communicate thedetails of an acceptable performance evaluation by a manager, how they influence andcontrol the actions of managers through their discourse and how performanceappraisal procedures are appropriated faithfully and ironically. In addition, the role ofcommunication plays during this process can be clarified.

    Since performance evaluation manipulations are inevitable, it is appropriate toassess what consequences they may entail for employees. Poon (2004) shows that thepolitically motivated manipulation of performance evaluations, likely the result of a

    supervisors desire to punish employees, reduces subordinate job satisfaction whileincreasing turnover. However, politically motivated performance manipulations aimedat rewarding employees, avoiding negative consequences and promoting a good workclimate (i.e. to avoid conflict), have no impact on subordinate job satisfaction andturnover. As proposed by other authors, researchers should evaluate performanceappraisal effectiveness while taking into account the goal of improving subordinateperformance (DeNisi and Gonzalez, 2004; DeNisi, 1996). We would also suggeststudying employee reactions to performance evaluation manipulations. For example,

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    289

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    18/21

    in what contexts might employees prefer biased performance evaluations over fair andequitable ones?

    Finally, from a methodological point of view, the performance appraisal field hasalways been a highly quantitative field. Consequently, a more qualitative approach to

    this domain should be emphasized. However, in the future, we should be careful aboutperpetuating the debate between both these fields of knowledge. In order to go beyondthe quantitative and qualitative debate, Gelo et al. (2008) propose using the recentlydeveloped Mixed Method Research, while Madill and Gough (2008) envisage howcommunication between research communities can be enhanced. Whatever approach isselected, we should try to better integrate qualitative and quantitative research as away of furthering our understanding of performance appraisal.

    References

    Altheide, D.L. (1987), Ethnographic content analysis, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 10, pp. 65-77.

    Banks, C.G. and Murphy, K.R. (1985), Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in

    performance appraisal, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 335-45.

    Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, Garden City, NJ.

    Bernardin, H.J. and Villanova, P. (1986), Performance appraisal, in Locke, E.A. (Ed.),Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings, Lexington Books, Lexington, pp. 43-62.

    Borman, W.C. (1991), Job behavior, performance and effectiveness, in Dunnette, M.D. andHough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2,Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 271-326.

    Bretz, R., Milkovich, G.T. and Read, W.H. (1992), The current state of performance appraisalresearch and practice: concerns, directions and implications, Journal of Management,Vol. 18, pp. 111-37.

    Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1986), Affect and appraisal accuracy: liking as an integral

    dimension in evaluating performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 672-8.Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives,

    South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

    Cleveland, J.N. and Murphy, K.R. (1992), Analyzing performance appraisal as goal directedbehaviour, in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human

    Resources Management, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 121-85.

    DeNisi, A.S. (1996), Cognitive Approach to Performance Appraisal: A Program of Research ,Routledge, New York, NY.

    DeNisi, A.S. and Gonzalez, J.A. (2004), Design performance appraisal systems to improveperformance, in Locke, E.E. (Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior,Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 60-72.

    Dipboye, R.L. (1985), Some neglected variables in research on discrimination in appraisals, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 116-27, 147.

    Farr, J.L. and Jacobs, R. (2006), Trust us: new perspectives on performance appraisal,in Bennett, W., Lance, C.E. and Woehr, D.J. (Eds), Performance Measurement: Current

    Perspectives and Future Challenges, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah,NJ, pp. 321-37.

    Farr, J.L. and Levy, P.E. (2007), Perfomance appraisal, in Koppes, L.L. (Ed.), HistoricalPerspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesPublishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 311-27.

    QROM4,3

    290

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    19/21

    Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1992), A due process metaphor for performanceappraisal, in Cummings, L. and Staw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 14, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 129-77.

    Gelo, O., Braakmann, D. and Benetka, G. (2008), Quantitative and qualitative research: beyond

    the debate, Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, Vol. 42, pp. 266-90.Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity

    Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Harris, M.M. (1994), Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: a theoreticalframework, Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 737-56.

    Ilgen, D.R., Barnes-Farrell, J.L. and McKellin, D.B. (1993), Performance appraisal processresearch in the 1980s: what has it contributed to appraisal in use?, Organizational

    Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 54, pp. 321-68.

    Johns, G. (2006), The essential impact of context on organizational behaviour, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, pp. 386-408.

    Judge, T.A. and Ferris, G.R. (1993), Social context of performance evaluation decisions,

    Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 80-105.Kellough, J.E. and Lu, H. (1993), The paradox of merit pay in the public sector: persistence of a

    problematic procedure, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 13, pp. 45-65.

    Kochanski, J. and Becom, A. (2008), Four key steps to performance management, Workspan,February, pp. 33-6.

    Latham, G.P. (1986), Job performance and appraisal, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds),International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Wiley, Chichester,pp. 117-53.

    Latham, G.P. (1988), Human resource training and development, Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 39, pp. 545-82.

    Lefkowitz, J. (2000), The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performanceratings: a literature review and proposed causal model, Journal of Occupational &

    Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 67-85.

    Levy, P.E. and Williams, J.R. (2004), The social context of performance appraisal: a review andframework for the future, Journal of Management, Vol. 30, pp. 881-905.

    Liden, R.C. and Graen, G. (1980), Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model ofleadership, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 451-65.

    Lindlof, T.R. (1995), Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA.

    Longenecker, C.O., Sims, H.P. and Gioia, D.A. (1987), Behind the mask: the politics of employeeappraisal, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1, pp. 183-93.

    Madill, A. and Gough, B. (2008), Qualitative research and its place in psychological science, Psychological Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 254-71.

    Manning, P.K. and Cullum-Swan, B. (1994), Narrative, content and semiotic analysis, in Denzin, N.K.

    and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds),Handbookof Qualitative Research, Sage, NewburyPark, CA, pp.463-78.

    Marchel, C. and Owens, S. (2007), Qualitative research in psychology: could William James get ajob?, History of Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 301-24.

    Maroney, B.P. and Buckley, M.R. (1992), Does research in performance appraisal influence thepractice of performance appraisal? Regretfully not!, Public Personnel Management

    Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 185-95.

    Mercer (2002), Effective Performance Management Practices, Mercer Human ResourceConsulting, New York, NY.

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    291

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    20/21

    Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and

    ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-63.

    Morin, D., Murphy, K.R. and Larocque, A. (1999), The relationship between performance

    appraisal context and rating inflation, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 45,

    pp. 694-726.

    Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,Organizational and Goal-based Perspectives, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Murphy, K.R., Cleveland, J.N., Skattebo, A.L. and Kinney, T.B. (2004), Raters who pursue

    different goals give different ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 158-64.

    Napier, N.K. and Latham, G.P. (1986), Outcome expectancies of people who conduct

    performance appraisals, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 827-37.

    Newman, D.A., Kinney, T. and Farr, J.L. (2004), Job performance ratings, in Thomas, J.C. (Ed.),

    Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Industrial and OrganizationalAssessment, Vol. 4, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 373-89.

    People IQ (2005), Study: performance appraisals are damaging HRs reputation, available at:

    www.peopleiq.com/hot_news.htmlPfeffer, J. (1981), Management as symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of

    organizational paradigm, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 1-52.

    Poon, J.M.L. (2004), Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover

    intention, Personnel Review, Vol. 33, pp. 322-34.

    Rennie, D., Watson, K. and Monteiro, A. (2002), The rise of qualitative research in psychology,

    Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 179-89.

    Schneier, C.E., Shaw, D.G. and Beatty, R.W. (1991), Performance measurement and

    management: a tool for strategy execution, Human Resource Management, Vol. 30,pp. 279-301.

    Silverman, D. (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Spencer, J.R. and Keeping, L.M. (2005), Construct confusion? A qualitative review of theinfluence of conscious rating distortion, paper presented at the Meeting of the

    Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, June, Toronto, Ontario.

    Staw, B.M. (1980), Rationality and justification in organizational life, Research inOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 45-80.

    Tesch, R. (1993), Software for qualitative researchers: analysis needs and program capabilities,

    in Fielding, N.G. and Lee, R.M. (Eds), Using Computers in Qualitative Research, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 16-37.

    Tsui, A.S. and Barry, B. (1986), Interpersonal affect and rating errors, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 29, pp. 586-99.

    Tziner, A., Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (2005), Contextual factors affecting rating

    behaviour, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30, pp. 89-98.Villanova, P. and Bernardin, H.J. (1989), Impression management in the context of performance

    appraisal, in Giacalone, R.A. and Rozenfeld, P. (Eds), Impression Management in theOrganization, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 299-313.

    Weick, K.E. (1979), Cognitive processes in organizational symbolism, Organizational Behavior,Vol. 1, pp. 101-15.

    Wong, K.F.E. and Kwong, J.Y.Y. (2007), Effects of rater goals on rating patterns: evidence from

    an experimental field study, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 577-85.

    QROM4,3

    292

  • 8/7/2019 Manager's Motivation

    21/21

    Wood, R.E. and Marshall, V. (2008), Accuracy and effectiveness in appraisal outcomes: theinfluence of self-efficacy, personal factors and organisational variables, Human Resource

    Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 295-313.

    WorldatWork and Sibson Consulting (2007), The State of Performance Management, a survey

    brief, Sibson Consulting, Princeton, NJ, July, p. 5.

    Further reading

    Arvey, R.D. and Murphy, K.R. (1998), Performance evaluation in work settings, Annual Reviewof Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 141-68.

    Bernardin, H.J. and Beatty, R.W. (1984), Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior atWork, Kent Publishing, Boston, MA.

    Bernardin, H.J. and Villanova, P. (2005), Research stream in rater self-efficacy, Group &Organization Management, Vol. 30, pp. 61-88.

    Edelman, L.B. (1990), Legal environment and organizational governance: the expansion of dueprocess in the American workplace, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 95, pp. 1401-40.

    Greenberg, J. (1986), Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 340-2.

    Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1989), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    About the authorsSylvie St-Onge is Professor at HEC Montreal and holds a PhD in Organizational Behaviour andIndustrial Relations from the Schulich School of Business (York University, Canada). Her areasof expertise encompass compensation and performance management, governance andwork-family balance practices. She is coauthor of three books in human resourcesmanagement, compensation management and supervision. She is also coeditor of two recenthandbooks on performance management. She currently serves as editor and director of Gestion,a referred professional journal. Sylvie St-Onge is the corresponding author and can be contacted

    at: [email protected] Morin is an Associate Professor of Human Resources and Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology at the School of Management at the University of Quebec in Montreal. He receivedhis PhD degree in Industrial Relations from Universite Laval (Quebec city). His research interestsinclude performance appraisal, staffing, emotional intelligence, personality in work organization,psychological measurement and person-environment fit.

    Mario Bellehumeur is a student based at HEC, Montreal, Canada.Francine Dupuis is a student based at HEC, Montreal, Canada.

    Evaluatesubordinate

    performance

    293

    To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints