Opening a Performance Dialogue With Employees

Abstract

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.

An Examination of Individually Performed and (Co)Managed Facework: Unique Communication within the Work-Spouse Relationship

“…These interactions were framed as beneficial in the long run (even if hard to hear in the moment) because of this perceived intention of supporting their positive face to other coworkers. There are two distinctions between Westerman and Smith (2015) findings and ours in the present study. First, the supervisors in their study did positive facework to counteract the threats from negative feedback, while in the current study, work spouses could just threaten each other's face without necessarily combining it with positive facework.…”

“…First, work spouses performed positive facework through (a) altercasting; (b) coordination; and (c) attunement. While Westerman and Smith (2015) found that supervisors used praise to build positive face before providing negative feedback in performance interviews, our findings related to altercasting found that work spouses can threaten each other's positive face (e.g., providing critique, pointing out flaws, etc.) if the purpose seemed altruistic or was done to improve their work spouse's effectiveness in the workplace.…”

“…For example, Archer and Willcox (2012) examined facework strategies at play during employee performance reviews and found these conversations emphasized different aspects of face on personal and professional levels and had impression management implications for both parties in the review and for the company itself. Similarly, Westerman and Smith (2015) explored the effectiveness of supervisor strategies in giving negative feedback during performance appraisals and found that supervisors who were able to use praise (building employees competence face) at the same time they delivered negative feedback (threat to competence face) were able to effectively save face for these employees. Bisel et al (2011) used Facework Theory to explain employee's decisions on how to respond to an unethical request because of threats to their own and other's face, and Van Proet (2009) explored how employees coordinated the impression of a team public performance to build the competence face of their employer.…”

“…In sum, Facework Theory (and relatedly Politeness Theory) has been used to explain behaviors of coworkers in general (e.g., Archer & Willcox, 2012;Van Proet, 2009;Westerman & Smith, 2015) and has been found to be fundamental in the maintenance of collegial peer friendships. These findings provide more warrant for using Facework Theory to explore the interactions of the work-spouse relationship.…”

Appraisal Participation and Perceived Voice in Annual Appraisal Interviews

“…However, it depends on each supervisor to implement these guidelines in the interview itself. Creating a constructive conversation about performance constitutes a central leadership challenge (e.g., Gordon & Stewart, 2009; Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 1987; Westerman & Smith, 2015). Thus, the AI has been described as “the Achilles’ heel of the entire process” (Kikoski & Litterer, 1983, p. 33).…”