This study is an initial exploration into the user acceptance of subordinate appraisals of managerial performance. Survey data from 128 public sector managers in five organizations suggest that subordinate ratings are acceptable primarily if used for developmental—as opposed to administrative—purposes. User acceptance was related to perceived accuracy and fairness, predicted morale effects, expected distortion, and feelings about the degree of knowledge that subordinates have regarding their managers' jobs. Further, certain management performance dimensions were found to be most appropriate for subordinate rating based on perceptions of accuracy and fairness.
BernardinH.J.KlattL.A.1985. “Managerial appraisal systems: Has practice caught up to the state of the art?” Personnel Administrator, 30 (11): 79–86.
6.
CascioW.F.1982. “Scientific, legal, and operational imperatives of workable performance appraisal systems.” Public Personnel Management, 11: 367–375.
7.
FinnR.H.FontaineP.A.1984. “Performance appraisal: Some dynamics and dilemmas.” Public Personnel Management, 13: 335–342.
8.
IlgenD.R.FeldmanJ.M.1983. “Performance appraisal: A process focus.” In CummingsL.L.StawB.M. (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5), Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
9.
McEvoyG.M.1985. Subordinate appraisals of Managers: A tabular summary and empirical note. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Western Academy of Management, San Diego, March 28–30.
10.
McEvoyG.M.BullerP.F.1987. “User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting.” Personnel Psychology, 40: 785–797.
11.
MountM.K.1984. Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial performance. Personnel Psychology. 37: 687–702.
12.
SteinJ.W.1986. “Public employee productivity: Can outcomes be validly measured at the jurisdictional level?” Public Personnel Management, 15: 111–117.
