Conversing About Performance

Gordon, Michael E.; Stewart, Lea P.

doi:10.1177/0893318908327159

Cited by 31 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gordon and Stewart (2009) advocated for planning ahead when delivering performance feedback, and research suggests that face threat can be mitigated by carefully selecting the language in the message. For example, Limaye and Cherry (1987) stated that messages need optimum levels of three characteristics: politeness, status or power, and clarity.…”

Section: Performance Appraisals and Negative Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening a Performance Dialogue With Employees

Westerman

Smith

2015

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how a supervisor's delivery of negative feedback affects employees' tendency to respond by either voicing their ideas or remaining silent. The results show that approbation, or the use of praise to soften face threat, was the most effective facework message for the supervisor to use when providing negative feedback. When employees felt more threatened, they reported that they would be less likely to use voice to help others and more likely to use silence defensively as a response, but as their perceptions of threat decreased, they generally reported that they were more likely to use voice to help others. The article discusses implications of these results, limitations of the study, and future directions of this research.

show abstract

Section: Performance Appraisals and Negative Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening a Performance Dialogue With Employees

Westerman

Smith

2015

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Managers viewing performance appraisal as positive tend to give more accurate ratings (Jawahar, 2001). Regrettably, there seems to be no consensus on an effective working solution to address manager attitudes and their impact of accurate performance appraisal ratings; consequently, displeasure with performance appraisal persists (Gordon & Stewart, 2009;Swanepoel et al, 2014). In order to influence managers' attitudes towards performance appraisal more positively, this study was aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of the factors that influence managers' existing attitudes towards performance appraisal.…”

Section: Research Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Performance appraisal is generally experienced as a negative process (Cascio & Aguinis, 2011;Gordon & Stewart, 2009). As managers are fundamental to the process of performance appraisal it is important to explore and better understand the factors that impact negatively on their attitudes towards performance appraisal.…”

Section: Outline Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing managers’ attitudes towards performance appraisal

Plessis

Niekerk

2017

SA j. hum. resour. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orientation: Managers often have negative attitudes towards performance appraisal because of its problematic nature, which is influenced by political and social contextual factors. These negative attitudes lead to reduced employee support, inaccurate performance appraisal ratings and, consequently, negative employee perceptions of the performance appraisal process. This state of affairs necessitates a deeper understanding of the factors influencing managers’ attitudes towards performance appraisal.Research purpose: The purpose of this research was to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that influence managers’ attitudes towards performance appraisal.Motivation for the study: Previous research has confirmed the importance of performance appraisals in organisations. However, managers’ dislike of and aversion to performance appraisal impact negatively on the effectiveness of performance appraisal systems and ultimately the development and performance of employees.Research design, approach and method: An interpretivist qualitative study was adopted, utilising naïve sketches and in-depth interviews to collect data from eight managers, purposively selected. The data were analysed by using Tesch’s descriptive data analysis technique.Main findings: This study revealed that performance appraisal is fundamentally an uncomfortable and emotional process for managers, which results in their adopting defensive attitudes. Because of many uncertainties, managers do not always display the ability or readiness to conduct performance appraisals. The organisational context might place the individual manager in a position to distort employee ratings, which in turn negatively influences that manager’s attitude.Practical and managerial implications: This study provides insight into the present-day experience of managers in respect of performance appraisal and highlights the factors that influence their attitudes.Contribution: The insight gained from this research into the factors impacting on the attitude of managers towards performance appraisals can assist organisations to better support and empower such managers to be more effective in their approach when conducting performance appraisals.

show abstract

“…To meet revalidation requirements doctors must provide a core set of supporting information and there is increasing emphasis on the quality of the appraisal interview and its outputs: the summary of discussion and the Personal Development Plan (PDP). The appraisal interview itself is vital for effective appraisal [15–17]. Poorly trained appraisers give inadequate feedback and over-estimate the evidence and skills of their appraisees [15] and the benefits of appraisal can be undermined if there is ineffective organisational support [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The appraisal interview itself is vital for effective appraisal [15–17]. Poorly trained appraisers give inadequate feedback and over-estimate the evidence and skills of their appraisees [15] and the benefits of appraisal can be undermined if there is ineffective organisational support [18]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation: the perceptions of London’s responsible officers and their appraisers

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo evaluate NHS England London region’s approach to the revalidation appraisal of responsible officers in London, exploring perceptions of the quality and impact of the appraisal process. Revalidation is the process which aims to ensure doctors in the UK are up-to-date and fit to practice medicine thus improving the quality of patient care. Revalidation recommendations are largely premised on the documentation included in annual appraisals, which includes the professional development a doctor has undertaken and supporting information about their practice.MethodsA pan-London qualitative study exploring the views of responsible officers and their appraisers about the revalidation appraisal process. The study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of the participants. Responsible officers were purposefully sampled to represent the broadest range of designated bodies. Data analysis generated themes pertaining to quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation with the potential to feed into and shape the evolving system under investigation.ResultsThe central importance of highly skilled appraisers was highlighted. Both groups reported educational opportunities embedded within the appraisal process. Independent appraisers, not matched by clinical speciality or place of work, were considered to take a more objective view of a responsible officer’s practice by providing an ‘outsider perspective’. However, covering the breadth of roles, in sufficient depth, was challenging. Participants reported a bias favouring the appraisal of the responsible officer role above others including clinical work. Appraisal and revalidation was perceived to have the potential to improve the healthcare standards and support both personal development and institutional quality improvement.ConclusionsResponsible officers play a central role in the revalidation process. Getting responsible officer appraisal right is central to supporting those individuals to in turn support doctors and healthcare organisations in continuous quality improvement. The complexity and importance of the role of responsible officer may make achieving an appraisal of all roles of such individuals problematic. This evaluation suggests responsible officer appraisal was perceived as educational and effective.

show abstract

Conversing About Performance

Cited by 31 publications

References 107 publications

Opening a Performance Dialogue With Employees

Opening a Performance Dialogue With Employees

Factors influencing managers’ attitudes towards performance appraisal

Quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation: the perceptions of London’s responsible officers and their appraisers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About