This paper reports on a qualitative field study conducted in Australia which examined what is occurring in formal performance appraisal interviews in relation to their objectivity and resultant outcomes. Supervisors and subordinates who had recently been involved in performance appraisals were interviewed about their experiences of the process. Perceptions of the utility of, and satisfaction with the interview process were examined. Further, the effect of the relationship between the participants on objectivity was investigated. Results indicated that formal appraisal interviews were not perceived to be of great utility, and that the relationship of the participants influenced the interview.
Brommer, W., J. Johnson, G. Rich, P. Podsakoff, and S. Mackenzie.1995. On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology48: 587-605.
2.
Carson, K., R. Cardy, and G.H. Dobbins.1991. Performance appraisal as effective management or deadly management disease. Group and Organization Studies16: 143-59.
3.
Cawley, B.D., L.M. Keeping, and P. Levy.1998. Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations . Journal of Applied Psychology83: 615-33.
4.
Deming, W.1986. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
5.
Dipboye, R., and R. de Pontbriand .1981. Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology66(2): 248-51.
6.
Giles, W.F. and K.W. Mossholder .1990. Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology75(4): 371-7.
7.
Glen, R.M.1990. Performance appraisal: An unnerving yet useful process . Public Personnel Management19: 1-10.
8.
Halachmi, A.1993. From performance appraisal to performance targeting. Public Personnel Management22(2): 323-44.
9.
Hall, J., B. Posner, and J. Harder.1989. Performance appraisal systems: Matching theory with practice. Group and Organization Studies14(1): 51-69.
10.
Ilgen, D., R. Peterson, B. Martin, and D. Boeschen.1981. Supervisor and subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes28: 311-30.
11.
Kleiman, F., M. Biderman, and R. Faley.1987. An examination of employee perceptions of a subjective performance appraisal system. Journal of Business and Psychology2: 112-21.
12.
Korsgaard, M., L. Roberson, and R. Rymph.1998. What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on managers' interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology83(5): 731-44.
13.
Larson, C.J. and B.L. Berg.1989. Inmates' perceptions of determinate and indeterminate sentences. Behavioral Sciences and the Law7(1): 127-37.
14.
Latham, G.P., D. Skarlicki, D. Irvine, and J.P. Siegel.1993. The increasing importance of performance appraisals to employee effectiveness in organizational settings in North America . International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology8: 87-132.
15.
Latham, G., and K. Wexley, K.1994. Increasing productivity through performance appraisal , 2nd edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.
Longenecker, C., A. Jaccoud, and H. Sims.1992. Quantitative and qualitative investigations of affect in executive judgement. Applied Psychology An International Review41: 21-41.
17.
Marshall, J.1986. Exploring the experiences of women managers: Towards rigour in qualitative methods. In Feminist social psychology, ed. S. Wilkinson.Milton Kaynes : Open University Press, 193-209.
18.
Mayer, R.C., and J.H. Davis.1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology84(1): 123-36.
19.
Minichiello, V., R. Aroni, E. Timewell, and L. Alexander.1990. Indepth interviewing: Researching people . New York: Longman Cheshire.
20.
Morehead, A., M. Steele, M. Alexander, K. Stephen, and L. Duffin, L.1997. Changes at work: The 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.
21.
Nathan, B.R., A.M., Jr Mohrman, and J. Milliman.1991. Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal34: 352-69.
22.
Nemeroff, W. and K. Wexley.1977. Relationships between performance feedback interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers and subordinates. In Academy of Management Proceedings , eds R.L. Taylor, M.J. O'Connel, R.A. Zawack, and D.D. Warrick, 30-4.
23.
Parkhe, A.1993. 'Messy' research, methodological predispositions, and theory development in international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review18: 227-68.
24.
Patton, M.1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
25.
Pulakos, E., and K. Wexley.1983. The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal26: 129-39.
26.
Roberts, G.E.1998. Perspectives on enduring and emerging issues in performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management27: 301-19.
27.
Schay, B.W.1993. In search of the Holy Grail: Lessons in performance management . Public Personnel Management22(4): 649-68.
28.
Sekaran, U.1992. Research methods for business. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Strauss, M.1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Taylor, M., S. Masterson, M. Renard, and K. Tracy. (1998. Managers' reactions to procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management Journal41: 568-79.
32.
Tsui, A.S., and O'Reilly, C.A.1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal22: 402-23.
