Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal.

Abstract

A neglected area of performance appraisal research concerns the context within which the appraisal process occurs. For a sample of exempt employees, measures were developed that assessed system components of the appraisal context. The contribution of these variables (complexity, implementation, and follow-up) to the prediction of 2 measures of employee reactions to performance appraisal (review session satisfaction and appraisal system satisfaction) was compared with the contribution of a more frequently studied set of variables-supervisory behaviors in the review session. The relationship of a salary linkage variable to the 2 outcome criteria also was assessed. The supervisory session variables were related to session satisfaction, and the system contextual variables were primarily related to system satisfaction. Salary linkage was associated with system satisfaction.Performance appraisal research has concentrated on a number of areas, for instance, the appraisal instrument, counseling and development of appraisees, rater training programs, and cognitive processes (see Banks & Murphy, 1985;Napier & Latham, 1986). In terms of the adoption of performance appraisal innovations by organizations, the impact of this research has been relatively limited in proportion to the amount of effort expended (Banks & Murphy, 198S). In comparison to other performance appraisal topics, the context in which performance appraisal is conducted has received only limited study. This is particularly interesting because the environment in which the performance appraisal process occurs has been designated as a source of considerable influence on the appraisal process (

A Closer Look at the Relationship between Justice Perceptions and Feedback Reactions: The role of the quality of the relationship with the supervisor

“…In a sample of managers, Russel and Goode (1988) reported that satisfaction with the supervisor was related to performance appraisal satisfaction. Giles and Mossholder (1990) also reported a high correlation (r = .61) between supervisory satisfaction and performance appraisal satisfaction (see also Jawahar, 2006).…”

Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate

“…The fact that rating labels are misused is not a reason to avoid ratings. There is a large research literature in our field on how to improve reactions to performance evaluation (e.g., Bobko & Colella, 1994;Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998;Dipboye & Pontbriand, 1981;Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland, 1986;Giles & Mossholder, 1990;Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, & Boeschen, 1981;Pichler, 2012;Silverman & Wexley, 1984).…”

The Current State of Performance Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications

“…However, the rating environment likely affects both rating practices and participant reactions. For example, recent research has shown that contextual variables (such as participation and rating frequency) affect ratee satisfaction (Dobbins, Cardy, & Platz-Vieno, 1990;Giles & Mossholder, 1990 Deming (1986) argues strongly that performance appraisal has serious negative consequences and urges organizations to cease all individual performance appraisals and to evaluate unit or plant level performance instead (Scholtes, 1987). This approach, reportedly in wide used in high involvement -high commitment facilities, focuses on assisting those whose performance is "out of the system."…”