Nature of Subordinate research paperParticipation

7/29/2019 Nature of Subordinate research paperParticipation

1/14

Academy of Managem ent Journal1978, Vol. 21, No. 4, 646-658.

The Nature of SubordinateParticipation in theAppraisal Interview^MARTIN M. GRELLERRohrer, Hibler, and Replogle, Inc.

To clarify the concept of participation in the appraisalinterview, 287 bank employees were surveyed. Analysisof their descriptions of the most recent appraisal interviewresulted in three factors: (1) a sense of ownership of theappra isal, (2) feelings of contribu tion, and f3) criticismfrom the boss. Ownership was the factor most stronglyrelated to subordinates' reaction to the appraisal; it wasalso found to be the factor most closely linked to over-all man agement style and was mod erated by job tenure.The basic findings were confirmed in a second study usinga different organization. The results are discussed in termsof participation as it applies to the appraisal interview.There is general agreement that subordinate participation can be avaluable part of an appraisal interview (M cG rego r, 19 57 ; M eyer, Kay , &Frenc h, 196 5; Wexley, Singh, & Yuk l, 19 73 ). Y et, despite the agreement

there is still no clear and inclusive definition of what constitutes "partic-ipation" in the context of the appraisal interview.Research on participation in the appraisal interview has shown its effectsto be somewhat tenuous. Participation has been shown to be less effectivefor younger workers than older ones (Hillery & W exley, 19 74 ) and lesseffective than oth er strategies such as goal setting (R on an , L ath am , &Kinne, 1973). One interpretation of such results is that participation servesdifferent functions in these different situations. However, other research hasshown that conventional representations of participation in the appraisalMartin M. Greller is a consultant with Rohrer. Hibler. and Reptogle. Inc., New York, N.Y


2/14

1978 Grelter 647interview decompose into several facets which differ in their relationshipsto satisfaction and motivation (Greller, 1975). An unexamined possibilityis that the different facets of participation serve different functions within anappraisal interview, in which case the moderation found in the Hillery andRonan studies may be an artifact of the facets of participation studied.There is also some question as to how much volitional control a manageractually has over the amount of participation that occurs in an appraisalinterview. French, Kay, and Meyer (1966) found that even when managersagreed in advance to run a participative or nonparticipative appraisal in-terview, it was quite difficult for them to act in opposition to their basictendencies toward subordinate participation. Other work has suggested thatthe most potent facets of participatioti in the appraisal interview are alsothose most apt to be related to overall management style (Greller, 1975;Nemeroff &Wexley, 1977).

The purpose of the present study is to inductively identify the factors rep-resenting the different types of participation that may be experienced inthe appraisal interview. Once such factors have been identified, they arestudied to see if they are associated with appraisal outcomes and if thatassociation differs for the different factors. Finally, the factors of participa-tion are exam ined to see if variables kno wn to affect p articipa tion (e.g ., jobtenure, goal setting, and supervisor's management style) have the same im-pact across all factors.

STUDY 1 M ETHODOLOGYSample

Questionnaires were collected from 317 employees in both trust andoperations areas of a large urban commercial bank. Because some peoplewithin the sample had not been appraised within the last year or failed toanswer one or more questions about the nature of the appraisal interview,287 replies (90.5 percent) were used for the present study. The study wascoordinated through the bank's organizational development and trainingdepartments. Questionnaires were administered at several locations withinthe bank during working hours. Administrations of the questionnaire weresupervised by either the author or a member of the bank's organizationaldevelopment department. The bank was operating under an appraisal systeminspired by management by objectives (MBO), however actual practicevaried widely within the bank.Characteristics of the AppraisalIn the first section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate


3/14

^ ^ Academy of Management Journal Decembeamong these were 19 items designed to illustrate various kinds of participation and three items dealing with the valence (positive or negative) of thsupervisor's evaluation of the subordinate. Statements about the most recenappraisal interview were rated on a seven-point scale with end pointlabelled "(1) does not describe it all all" to "(7) describes it extremelywell." Both participation and valence items were subjected to factor analysiand are presented in Table 1.

Two other characteristics of the appraisal were measured in this part ofthe questionnaire. The first, goal setting, indicates the degree to which goalwere set during the appraisal: "Specific objectives were set," "I obtaineda better idea of what I should be doing in my job," "The boss and I reviewedthe goals of my job," and "I left with a clear idea of the criteria of goodperformance." Goal setting has an interitem reliability of ,60. Second, twoitems with reliability of .66 were used to assess the use of goals which hadbeen set previously as criteria for the appraisal: "The appraisal was nobased on previously set goals," and "My performance of previously set goalswas reviewed." The use of goals measure was included to account for the unevenness in application and use of the objectives set in conjunction with thebank's MBO program.Reaction to the Appraisal

Reaction to the appraisal was measured in four ways, expanding themeasures used in earlier research (Greller, 19 75 ; Wexley et al., 19 73 )Perceived utility' was measured by four items: "The appraisal helped melearn how I can do my job better." "I learned a lot from the ap praisa l," "T heappraisal helped me understand my mistakes," and "I have a clearer idea ofwhat the boss expects from me because of the appraisal." Utility has inter-item reliability of .87. Satisfaction with the appraisal was comprised ofthree items: "I was satisfied with the review," "I feel good about the way theappraisal was conducted," and "There are many ways in which I wouldhave liked the appraisal to be different." The last item was reverse coded,resulting in a measure with interitem reliability of .81. Anxiety during theappraisal interview was measured by four items: "The review made meangry," "The interview was upsetting," and "I was tense during the review,"all positively coded, and "I was at ease during most of the review." reversecoded. Interitem reliability for the anxiety measure was estimated to be .76.Finally, four items were used to measure derogation of the appraisal by theindividual: "The boss really did not have enough information about myperfo rm ance ," "The boss overlooked im portant parts of my past perfor-mance," "The boss seemed too emotional," and "The appraisal seemed arbi-


4/14

1978 Greller 649Manager^s Style

Three traditional leader attributes were assessed. Consideration andinitiation of structure were measured using the items which loaded mostheavily across all three samples in Szilagyi and Sims' (1974) study. Eightitems were used to measure consideration; four were positive instances:"The boss stands up for us even if it makes him/her unpopular," "The bossis easy to understand," "The boss expresses appreciation when one of usdoes a good job," and "The boss tries to keep those employed under him/her in good standing with those higher in authority." Four negative itemswere reverse coded, "The boss treats people without consideration for theirfeelings." "The boss changes subordinates' duties without first talking itover with them," "The boss criticizes subordinates in front of others," and"The boss refuses to explain his/her actions." The interitem rehability forconsideration is .78. Six items, with a reliability of .69, were used to measureinitiation of structure, "The boss rules with an iron hand," "The boss talksabout how much should be done," "The boss emphasizes the quantity ofwork," "The boss criticizes poor work," "The boss 'needles' subordinates forgreater effort." and "The boss insists that subordinates follow standard waysof doing things in every detail." The third leadership measure was hier-archical influence, measuring the degree to which the subordinate perceivesthe supervisor as having control over organizational rewards and resources(Co m rey, Pfiffner, & High, 195 4; H arold, 197 4; W igdor, 19 69 ). Th emeasure had an interitem reliability of .61 for this sample.Job tenure was measured by the number of months the participant re-ported being in his or her present position.

RESULTSFactorial Representation

A principal components analysis with estimates of communalities in thediagonals and VARIMAX rotation was used to identify the most reasonableway of reducing the 19 participation items and the three dealing withvalence of evaluation. The primary criteria were (a) that clear, discerniblefactors result which (b) could be interpreted and (c) could be replicated.The sample was divided in half to allow a demonstration of replicability.These criteria were best met by a three-factor solution.Th e solution presented in Tab le 1 identifies two types of participation andone indication of the valence of the appraisal. Interpretations are based onitems which load clearly and highly on the same factor in both subsamples.


5/14

650 Academy of Management Journal December

" tS t

Hi

II

IJ

O Tt in OO O CM O '.O r-- ij-i c 00 oo OO r-t


6/14

1978 Greller 651dressed. The subordinates also indicated that their work was praised by theboss.The next factor, contributions, focuses more on actions or effects. Theindividual makes suggestions or senses that there was an impact on the boss.Influence can be on future assignments, goals, or the actual content of theappraisal interview itself. A central emphasis of contributions is the sub-ordinate's being the source of influence (e.g., items 6 and 8): for ownership,the question of who causes issues to be addressed is irrelevant (e.g., item4 ) .

The third factor is composed of two items reflecting criticism of thesubordinate's performance. Apparently, fault finding is independent of thetwo types of participation; it is also not simply the opposite of praise.The most obvious form of participation, who did most of the talking,does not load on any of the three factors. This is consistent with previouswork which suggests that what one talks about in an appraisal is more im-portant than how much time one spends saying it (Greller, 1975; NemerofE& Wexley, 19 77 ).

Effects of ParticipationHaving identified three factors which represent participation in the ap-praisal interview and the valence of evaluation, the next question is whateffect do these have on reaction to the appraisal? To examine this question,those items which clearly loaded on a factor for both subsamples were givena unit weight and averaged to produce the individual's score for that factor.Unit weighting provides a stable model (Einhorn &Hogarth, 1975), and inthis case, the alternative of using factor scores would be misleading as thescores would be based on two different analyses, one for each of thesubsamples.The regression of the three characteristics on each of the four reactions is

presented in Table 2. Each of the models has a significant multiple correla-tion and in each the relationship is a function of ownership and criticism.TABLE 2

Standardized Beta Weights for Eacli of the Three AppraisalCharacteristics Regressed on Each of the Appraisal Reactionsfor the Bank Sample

ReactionUtility R4 3 * * *

Contribution.09

Appraisal Cha racteristicOwnership.38*** Criticism.15*


7/14

65 2 Academy of Management Journal DecembeOwnership is associated with greater satisfaction and perceived usefulnessand with lower levels of anxiety and derogation. Unexpectedly, criticism ispositively related to perceived usefulness. The independent effect of sub-

ordinate contributions is not significant.To examine the robustness of these findings, goal setting and use of goalswere forced into the regression equations. In only one instance did this resultin a significant change of R. The model for utility accounts for 12.9 percenmore variance when the two additional measures are included. T'he in-dependent effects of ownership and criticism cease to be significant in thisexpanded regression on utility; the only significant weight is the oneassociated with the use of previously set objective (b = .53, f = 33.35p < . 0 0 1 ) .The setting of goals is associated with greater satisfaction (b = .17F = 4.25,p < .05) and less anxiety (b = .22,F- 5.08, p < .0 5) ; how-ever these do not improve the models significantly, nor do they produce sub-stantial change in the weights of the other variable.

Relationship to Leader CharacteristicsTa ble 3 presents correlations which supp ort the notion th at ap praisal styleis related to management style. Two findings are of particular interest.First, ownership, which was shown to have the strongest relationship to ap-praisal reactions, has the highest correlations with both consideration andhierarchical influence. Second, criticism is not significantly associated withreduction in the amount of influence attributed to the supervisor, a distortionwhich would reduce the risk attendant upon criticism from a powerfulsupervisor.

Moderating Effects of Job TenureThe sample was trichotomized based on the individual's job tenure, tak-

ing those with the longest job tenure (in excess of 39 m on ths) and those withthe least tenure (less than 24 months)- as separate subsamples. Regressionsof the appraisal factors on each of the appraisal reactions were computedseparately for long and short-tenure employees. The difference in betaweights was then tested. There were no significant differences betweensenior and junior employees in the models for perceived utility or anxiety.In the model for satisfaction, ownership is more strongly associated withsatisfaction for older workers than for younger ones (t 1.68, p < . 0 5 ) .This result is consistent with the Hillery and Wexley finding, however, it isthe only instance in which job tenure moderates the effects of participation.


8/14

1978 Greller 653TABLE 3

Correlations Between Appraisal CharacteristicsSupervisor C haracteristicAppraisal Consideration Structure InfluenceCharacteristics (n = 265) (n = 262) (n = 280)

ContribuUon ^S** ^ 6 ^ 6 ^Ownership .46** 03 .24**Criticism - . 2 2 * * ^9 --OS* P < .01* * p < . 0 0 1

The effects of criticism are moderated by job tenure in two instances.Junior workers showed a greater propensity to become dissatisfied in theface of criticism (t 1.95, p


9/14

654 Academy of Management Journal Decembeinterview. Since one may be tempted to discount the results as unique to theparticular sample or the banking industry, it is important to corroborate thebasic findings. To provide such verification a second study was conductedin a quite different organization using the factors identified in the first study.A small engineering R & D firm situated in a rural area was revising itsappraisal procedures and practices. The firm had been using an appraisalform resembling the Oflicer Fitness Reports but were unsatisfied as theevaluations were either meaninglessly high or else managers felt they werecommitting themselves to unwarranted criticism of the subordinate. Further,both managers and subordinates viewed the appraisal review as an eventwhich should primarily promote developmental discussions, a purpose notwell served by the existing procedures.

Questionnaires concerning the appraisal were collected from 31 em-ployees (everyone in the organization who had been appraised and was atwork during the period of administration). The data of concern here arethe measures of appraisal characteristics and reactions to the appraisal,which are the same as used in the bank. The reliabilities were as follows:ownership (.65), contribution (.58), criticism (.24), goal setting (.75),goal use (.68), anxiety (.74), derogation (.58), satisfaction (.76), andutility (.79).The low interitem reliability for criticism is distressing, however, in the

context of the particular organization it does make sense. Difficulty withcriticism was one of the factors that led the firm to consider revising its ap-praisal procedure. The distinction between being "quite critical" and"viewing perform ance as less tha n satisfactory"' (item s used in the criticismmeasure) was one to which every member of this organization was sensitiveat the time of the study.RESULTS

Table 4 contains the standardized beta weights for the three appraisalcharacteristics regressed on each of the four appraisal reactions. The resultsare similar to those for the bank (Table 2) with several exceptions. Theweak relationships previously identified with anxiety now drop below the5 percent level of significance, reflecting the difference in sample size. Theeffect of criticism, significant in the analysis for the bank, is no longer sub-stantial. Whether this diminution is due to a substantive difference in thenature of criticism between the two organizations or simply reflects the lackof stability in the measure for the R & D sample cannot be determined.Another difference between the samples is that here the goal setting andgoal use m easure s do not ren der the effects of ow nership nonsignificant


10/14

1978 Greller 655TABLE 4

Sfnadardized Beta Weights for the Three Appraisal CharacteristicsRegressed on the Appraisal Reactions for the R & D SampleAppraisal C haracteristicAppraisalReaction R Contribution Ow nership Criticism

Utility ^6 ^ 4 ^ ~ ^ 3 * ^ 7Satisfaction .66 U .70* .02Anxiety .36 -. 1 5 - . 1 9 .21Derogation J 2 ^5 8 1* -0^* p < .001Despite the radical difference between the two research sites, the basicfinding was replicated. Contributions were found to be less strongly as-sociated with positive appraisal outcomes than was ownership, even wherethe effects of criticism and goal setting were controlled.

DISCUSSIONThe most striking finding is that those measures of appraisal behaviorwhich are most specific and most closely match the actions prescribed formanagers have the least effect. Specific behaviors are so loosely linked to

each other that they neither produce an independent factor nor load onfactors with other descriptions of the appraisal interview. As a consequence,it seems unlikely that simplistic changes of manager behavior in the inter-view would help.If neither simple behaviors nor influence by the subordinate (as reflectedin contributions) predict favorable outcome in the appraisal interview, whatdoes? Just what sort of a construct is "ownership"? It may not be far re-moved from what others have labelled "psychological participation" (e.g.,Wexley et al., 1973), for ownership involves being welcomed and feelingthat what needed to be done was done. The notion of meeting needs wouldimply that the effectiveness of a manager's behavior can only be judgedrelative to the needs with which the subordinate enters the situation. Thereis no guarantee that the same behaviors will produce a sense of ownershipacross subordinates in all situations. An important task for future research isto examine the interaction of situational and interpersonal variables as theyaffect ownership.

The variables dealing with goal setting and use in the appraisal interviewwere included to check the robustness of the participation findings. Whileownership was little affected by these measures, goal setting was con-sistently associated with satisfaction. In addition, the use of goals in the


11/14

^^^ Academy of Management Journal DecemberAdmittedly, the results of the present study ought to be viewed with somecaution. All the data were gathered through questionnaires administered topeople who had previously been appraised, thus, the results may be subject

to response-response bias. While such bias cannot be completely discounted,there is evidence to suggest that the effects of any such bias are limited. Re-sponse-response bias is manifested through uniformly positive or negativereactions to the appraisal and supervisor. Such a bias could explain thecorrelation of ownership with reaction to the appraisal or with supervisorconsideration. Yet, if such a bias were at work, it is hard to explain whycontributions were not similarly biased. To be consistent with the hypoth-esis of such bias, many of the items which did not load on any of thefactors should have, being appraisal behaviors frequently associated with"good," participative, or enlightened management. In addition, some of thefindings are directly opposite of those expected from response-respo nsebias: the positive relation of criticism with usefulness and the failure ofsubordinates to denigrate the supervisor's power in the face of criticism.Addition al sup port for the results is found in the work of Nemeroff andWexley (1977), who obtained similar results using both supervisor andsubordinate ratings of the appraisal interview.

Before departing from the parsimony of a simpler view of participationm the appraisal interview, at least two conditions must be met. First, thereshould be consisten t evidence that the simpler view is no t sufficient. Second,the new perspective should be able to incorporate those findings which havepreviously been used to support the view that participation, simply con-ceived, can produce effective appraisal interviews.Is There Consistent Evidence?

Across a variety of organizations, using a number of approaches, similarresults have been found. Using accounting and data processing managersfrom a utility company and savings bank employees (primarily frombranches), Greller (1975) found that traditional measures of participationin the appraisal interview were not unitary and were often more closelyassociated with global satisfaction measures than with measures of attitudetoward the appraisal. The relationship between participation and attitudetoward the appraisal was strongest for the least behavioral facets of partici-pation. These results are supported by the two studies reported here usinga broader sample of items and a different sample of respondents (employeesm the back offices of a com mercial ban k and an R & D firm). U sing adifferent approach, Nemeroff and Wexley (1977) started by postulatingfive dimensions of appraisal behavior. Mental hygiene therapy aids and the


12/14

1978 Greller 657Specific behaviors and the one which most closely approximates ownership.These results obtained using both supervisor and subordinate ratings.Reexamination of Earlier StudiesSaying that simple "participative" behaviors are not related to positiveappraisal outcomes seems to disagree with earlier research. Yet, a closerreading of the literature which led to the expectation that participation hasa simple and straightforward effect shows that the relationship is neithersimple nor straightforward. For example, even in the widely cited instanceof the Gen eral Electric studies (M eyer, Kay , & Fre nc h, 19 65 ), the resultswere subject to qualification. Participation was found to be effective whenpresenting a "low threat" (positive) evaluation where the manager wascustomarily participative; when participation was used in a "high threat"(critical) review with a manager who was not usually participative, theeffects were negative (Fre nch , Kay, & Meyer, 19 66 ). Unlike the presentstudies, French and associates used independent raters to observe howparticipative the interviews were. These raters observed participative be-havior, even in those interviews where its effect was adverse, leading to theconclusion that participation failed to have its effect under adverse cir-cumstances.

The results of the present studies suggest another interpretation; perhapsparticipation did not occur. The observers recorded behaviors associatedwith participation, but they did not report "ownership." It is hard toimagine ownership existing in the appraisal interview where the managerbehaves in a manner inconsistent with his customary management stylewhile delivering a critical appraisal.A second example is the experimental study of Wexley et al. (1973) inwhich participative appraisal interview strategies were found to improve theoutcome of the appraisal. A review of the way in which participation wasoperationalized suggests that much more than behavioral participationchanged across conditions. Consider the description of their high participa-tive condition (Wexley et al., 1973, p. 55), ". . . non-directive, open-endedquestions to encourage the subordinate to express his ideas and feelingsabout solutions to problems." Mutual goal setting was also included as apart of this treatment. A possible consequence of this treatment is to beginbuilding a relationship between the two previously unacquainted partici-pants, which minimizes threat, creates a sense of acceptance, limits directcriticism, and conveys a sense of caring and consideration. Tn addition toproviding the subject an opportunity for self expression, the high participa-tion condition seems to foster the kind of relationship associated with


13/14

" ^ Academy of Management Journal DecembeCertainly, this does not invalidate earlier work, but it does help to explainthe sporadic impact of participative behaviors in the appraisal interview. A nimportant question is what contingencies affect whether particular partici-pative behaviors result in psychological participation. One factor thatseems to be important is the function the appraisal interview serves for thesubordinate. A second, not necessarily unrelated, concern is where thisparticular encounter fits into the larger context of manager-subordinateinteraction. To understand participation in the appraisal interview, futureresearch must be directed toward the role of the appraisal in the individual'srelationship to the job, manager, and firm.

REFERENCES1. Blood. M. R. "W ork Values and Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol2. Co mrey, A. L., J. Pffifner. and W . S. Hig h. Factors Influencing Organizational Effective-ness (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1954).3 . Einhom, H. I., and R. M. Hogarth. "Unit Weighting Schemes for Decision Making."Orgiinizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol. 13 (1975), 171-1924. French, J. R. P., E. Kay. and H. H. Meyer. "Participation and the Appraisal System "Human Relations, Vol. 19 (1966). 3-20.5. Greller, M. M. "Subordinate Participation and Reaction to the Appraisal Interview"Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 60 (1975), 544-549.6. Gr eller. M, M., and D. M. Hero ld. "Sources of Feedback; A Prelim inary Investiga-

tion. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol. 13 (1975). 244-2567. Herold, D . M. "Interaction of Subordinate and L eader Charac teristics' in Mo deratingthe Consideration-Satisfaction Relations hip," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 598. Hillery, J. M.. and K. N. Wexley. "Participation in Appraisal Interviews Conductedm a Training Situation," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974), 168-171.9. Ma ier. N . R. F. Psychology in Industrial Organizations (Boston: Hough ton-Miffin 1973)10. McGregor, D. "An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal," Harvard Business ReviewVol. 34, No. 3 (1957), 89-94.11. Meyer, H. H.. E. Kay, and J. R. P. French "Split Roles in Performa nce Ap praisa l,"Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43 , N o. 1 (1965), 123 -129.12. Nemeroff. W. F., and K. N. Wexley. "Relationship Between Performance Appraisal

Characteristics and Interview Outcomes as Perceived by Supervisors and Subordinates."Proceedings of the Academy of Management (1977), pp 30-3413. Ronan. W. E.. G. P. Latham, and S. B. Kinne. "Effects of Goal Setting and Supervisionon Worker Behavior m an Industrial Situation," Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 5814. Szilagyi, A. D., and H. P. Sims. "Cross-sample Stability of the Supervisory BehaviorDescription Qwestionnaire" Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 59(1974) 767-77015. Wexley, K, N., J. P, Singh, and G. A. Yukl. "Subordinate Personalily as a Moderatorof Effects of Participation in Three Types of Appraisal Interviews." Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 58 (1973). 54-59.16. Wigdor, L. Effectiveness of Various Management and Organizational Characteristicson Employee Satisfaction and Performance as a Function of Employees Need for

Independence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bernard M. Baruch Colleee CitvUniversity of New York, 1969).


14/14

Nature of Subordinate research paperParticipation

Documents

Transcript of Nature of Subordinate research paperParticipation