Effective Communication in the Performance Appraisal Interview: Face-To-Face Communication for Public Managers in the Culturally Diverse Workplace

Abstract

This article first restates and then extends a thesis about the performance appraisal process first published in this journal more than 15 years ago-that the public manag er's performance in the face-to-face encounter of "the appraisal interview itself is the Achilles' heel of the entire process." This 1983 article held that many public managers experience discomfort approaching the actual performance appraisal interview and difficulty in conducting it. For they usually are untrained, and may even be unaware of the scholarly work that has identified the skills that make for more effective face-toface communication. At that time, the published literature in this area offered littie help to public managers, so the 1983 article presented six specific "microcommunication skiUs" to help public managers communicate more effectively in the performance appraisal interview. This article restates those six microcommunication skills and extends its 1983 thesis of their importance for two reasons-first, a significant but passing management approach; and second, a major shift in the demographic composition of the United States. Both of these factors have profound implications for face-to-face communica tion.The widespread adoption of the Total Quality Management (TQM) movement by pub lic and private organizations has stimulated an attack upon the formal performance appraisal process in general, and, more specifically, upon the performance appraisal interview itself. Scholars and managers who are TQM advocates suggest that the adoption of TQM reduces, modifies, or even eliminates the need for the formal perfor mance appraisal process and the interview itself. This article takes a slightiy different position. It holds that an organization's adoption of Total Quality Management increases the incidence and importance of effective face-to-face communication.The demographic shift in America's population and work force will have an even more profound effect upon interpersonal communication. By 2050, about half of Americans will be African American, Hispanic, and Asian American, and about half will be white. The United States is becoming a much more culturally diverse nation. The problems of face-to-face communication in an essentially monocultural work force may be insignificant compared to the interpersonal communication difficulties which may accompany the more culturally diverse work force that is forecast. This article concludes by reviewing the previous models that have conceptualized interpersonal communication. It then presents a theoretical model, which may assist managers and stimulate scholarly research in the increasingly important area of faceto-face communication in culturally diverse organizational settings.

Conversation Analysis in Dialogue With Stocks of Interactional Knowledge: Facework and Appraisal Interviews

“…They are often neither based on direct observation of AIs nor do they offer practitioners any practical advice concerning communicative practice. For example, Kikoski (1998), noting the increasing cultural diversity of America's workforce, suggests that Ivey, Ivey, and Simek-Downing's (1987) model of intercultural communication should be adopted. As Kikoski (1998) states, more effective communication (in AIs) is more likely to occur, "when one takes into account both the individuality of the individual before you, as well as the cultural/ historical background that might influence his/her manner of communication" (p. 509).…”

“…For example, Kikoski (1998), noting the increasing cultural diversity of America's workforce, suggests that Ivey, Ivey, and Simek-Downing's (1987) model of intercultural communication should be adopted. As Kikoski (1998) states, more effective communication (in AIs) is more likely to occur, "when one takes into account both the individuality of the individual before you, as well as the cultural/ historical background that might influence his/her manner of communication" (p. 509). However, no actual data are provided, nor is an explanation given as to how such a theory could be operationalized in terms of concrete discursive strategies, and the practitioner is left to intuitively decide how to take account of the individual and his or her cultural background.…”

“…Following (Asmuß, 2008), this research has three main foci: added organizational value, employee satisfaction, and best practice. Yet as various researchers have pointed out (e.g., Asmuß, 2008;Kikoski, 1998;Kikoski & Litterer, 1983) little of this research deals with what actually happens in the AI itself. Consequently, the AI itself has remained a black box around which numerous theories and quasi theories of interaction have emerged.…”

Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioral responses in appraisal research

“…Hence whether a person is conducting or attending the interview, both parties to the discussion are exposed to this core activity of the system. A great deal of the appraisal literature also addresses this important aspect of the system (Clement & Stevens, 1986;Goodson, McGee, & Seers, 1992;Kacmar, Wayne, & Wright, 1996;Kikoski, 1999;Pearce & Porter, 1986).…”

The effectiveness of a diversity awareness training programme

“…Performance management (1994); Hayles & Russell assists employees (especially from designated groups) with their development. For performance (1997); ; management to be successful in a diverse workforce, all employees must be treated as unique individuals Kikoski (1998); Mathews with different strengths, weaknesses, problems and training needs. Continual feedback is also essential.…”