Abstract:The literature tells that performance appraisal interviews (AIs) are approached with trepidation by appraisees and appraisers alike. However, despite this observation, few fine-grained analyses have been carried out into the in situ communicative strategies deployed by practitioners to deal with the face-threatening nature of AIs. Using conversation analysis as a research methodology and transcripts of naturally occurring talk from an AI, this article explicates the seen but unnoticed machinery of talk by whic… Show more
“…Clifton (2012) reproduces strips of interaction that show that documents and reading the documents is important in terms of what happens in interaction. Similarly, Adams's (1981) analysis points toward the fact that texts such as goal sheets and the practice of reading play a highly important role in the interaction.…”
Section: Pais As Social and Discursive Practicesmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Similarly, studies related to communicational aspects of PAIs (Laird and Clampitt, 1985;Van der Molen and Kluytmans, 1997) have been preoccupied with what is good and efficient communication. In all, we can conclude that prescriptive research has been managerially-centered: this research has established guidelines on how to conduct PAIs, but neglected the interactive character of the interview (Fletcher, 2001;Asmub, 2008;Clifton, 2012;Gordon and Steward, 2009). …”
Section: Pais As Social and Discursive Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Her study demonstrates that giving critical feedback is socially problematic, and that this specifically affects the way the employees deal with negative assessments. Clifton (2012) elaborates on this theme and shows that facework characterizes the conduct of interviews.…”
Section: Pais As Social and Discursive Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Put more generally, there has been an overall emphasis on reported experiences of PAs (e.g. interviews or questionnaires) in past research (Gordon and Steward, 2009), but only a few (for exceptions, see Adams, 1981;Asmub, 2008;Sandlund et al, 2011;Clifton, 2012) have dealt with PAs as situated action, as a lived experience and in real time. In simple terms, e.g.…”
“…Clifton (2012) reproduces strips of interaction that show that documents and reading the documents is important in terms of what happens in interaction. Similarly, Adams's (1981) analysis points toward the fact that texts such as goal sheets and the practice of reading play a highly important role in the interaction.…”
Section: Pais As Social and Discursive Practicesmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Similarly, studies related to communicational aspects of PAIs (Laird and Clampitt, 1985;Van der Molen and Kluytmans, 1997) have been preoccupied with what is good and efficient communication. In all, we can conclude that prescriptive research has been managerially-centered: this research has established guidelines on how to conduct PAIs, but neglected the interactive character of the interview (Fletcher, 2001;Asmub, 2008;Clifton, 2012;Gordon and Steward, 2009). …”
Section: Pais As Social and Discursive Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Her study demonstrates that giving critical feedback is socially problematic, and that this specifically affects the way the employees deal with negative assessments. Clifton (2012) elaborates on this theme and shows that facework characterizes the conduct of interviews.…”
Section: Pais As Social and Discursive Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Put more generally, there has been an overall emphasis on reported experiences of PAs (e.g. interviews or questionnaires) in past research (Gordon and Steward, 2009), but only a few (for exceptions, see Adams, 1981;Asmub, 2008;Sandlund et al, 2011;Clifton, 2012) have dealt with PAs as situated action, as a lived experience and in real time. In simple terms, e.g.…”
“…She approaches this topic from a conversation analytic perspective by applying the notion of preference and by discussing the interactional consequences of using either preferred or dispreferred turn shapes in these negative assessments. Using the same methodological perspective, Clifton (2012a) looks into the way in which face-threatening activities are often very carefully dealt with in performance appraisal interviews in order to prevent any attacks on the identities constructed by the appraiser and appraisee and to maintain a good working relationship. In line with Asmuß's findings, Clifton emphasizes the collaborative nature of facework in performance appraisal interviews, describing it as a "joint accomplishment" (Clifton, 2012a: 302).…”
Although the topic of leadership is increasingly becoming an area of interest for discourse analysts, most of the studies on leadership discourse focus on business meetings and largely ignore other institutional contexts. This paper aims to address this gap by exploring leadership discourse in another important but often neglected genre, namely the performance appraisal interview.Drawing on naturally-occurring performance appraisal interviews recorded in a medical lab, we explore the particularly salient and (from a linguistic perspective) largely under-researched leadership activity of gate-keeping. This leadership activity is central to performance appraisal interviews and evolves around the conjoint negotiation of meaning and the co-construction of institutionalisable answers as they are 'fixed' by means of note taking.Through an in-depth analysis of how these leadership activities are performed in three performance appraisal interviews, this paper contributes to an understanding of the complex processes through which leadership is actually enacted on the micro-level of interactions in this increasingly relevant genre of institutional discourse.Highlights: (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/highlights) -We study leadership discourse in performance appraisal interviews.-We explore the leadership activity of gate-keeping. -We identify and describe some discursive resources through which leadership is done. -Findings show that leadership is a collaborative activity rather than an attribute.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.