The Effects of Feedback Accountability on Upward Appraisal Ratings

Abstract

Do subordinates feel and respond differently to upward appraisal procedures depending on whether they are accountable or anonymous? Accountability requires subordinates to identify themselves on the upward appraisal questionnaires they complete. In an experimental field study, 38 managers and their subordinates from an insurance company were randomly assigned to use one of the appraisal procedures. As hypothesized, managers who received feedback from specific individuals in the accountability procedure viewed the upward appraisal process more positively than did managers in the anonymity procedure. However, subordinates felt more comfortable giving anonymous responses. As a result, subordinates who used the accountability procedure rated their managers significantly higher than the subordinates who responded anonymously. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that an upward appraisal procedure in which individuals are accountable for their responses may produce inflated ratings of managers' performance. Further research should compare the accountability and anonymous upward appraisal procedures to determine which procedure produces more accurate ratings.

Coming Full Circle: Using Research and Practice to Address 27 Questions About 360-Degree Feedback Programs.

“…Antonioni (1994) found that managers viewed the feedback process more positively when raters were held accountable for their ratings, yet subordinates viewed the feedback process more positively when they were anonymous. When raters were held accountable (i.e., identified), they gave higher ratings because they were concerned about the repercussions of giving low ratings.…”

“…To gain a better understanding of the nature of the dimensions that have been investigated, several studies were content analyzed (Antonioni, 1994;Johnson & Ferstl, 1999;Mount, Judge, Scullen, Sytsma, & Hezlett, 1998;Smither et al, 1995;Walker & Smither, 1999). The performance dimensions used by these authors evidenced considerable overlap, with the following list of dimensions present in one or more of these studies:…”

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

“…Multirater 360 feedback in the form of either formal ratings or informal input may be especially relevant as work becomes more team based, less hierarchical, and more customer focused, as other changes result in additional parties having performance information on an employee, and as work arrangements change (e.g., remote work) such that the manager has less of an opportunity to observe the work of the employee. It has many potential advantages, such as increased reliability, reduced bias, and reduced leniency (e.g., Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013;Antonioni, 1994;Flint, 1999;London & Wohlers, 1991;Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005). Simplifying the cognitive demands and reducing, through simplification of the process and forms, the motivational barriers for managers is also likely to be helpful (Efron & Ort, 2010).…”

The acceptability of 360 degree appraisals: A customer-supplier relationship perspective

“…First, in the case of upward appraisals, the providers or customers tend to be at lower organizational levels, as compared to the receivers of such appraisals. This results in power differentials which necessitate that 360 degree appraisals be collected anonymously, or at least confidentially, to protect the subordinates who provide appraisals (Antonioni, 1994;Smither, London, Vasilopoulos, Reilly, Millsap, & Salvemini, 1995). Second, even in the case of peers or external customers, such individuals may fear repercussions if their appraisals can be personally identified.…”

“…In other words, coworkers prefer that ratings from their peers be used only for developmental purposes (Farh, Cannella, & Bedeian, 1991;McEvoy & Buller, 1987) managers prefer that subordinate ratings be used in a similar manner (Antonioni, 1994). Although little evidence is available, we suspect that most subordinates would prefer that upward appraisals have an evaluative component, if they could be kept anonymous.…”