Over the years, performance appraisal interviews have become increasingly professionalized. This is clearly noticeable in the different rating scales and questionnaires that are distributed among supervisors and employees as a support during the preparatory and interviewing phase of the performance appraisal process, as is also in line with current advice given to practitioners. Using discourse analysis as a methodology to study sequential features and discourse strategies in three performance appraisal interviews, this article zooms in on the effect of such a questionnaire (based on the organization’s competencies) on the interview itself. The analyses reveal a nuanced picture, demonstrating on the one hand advantages of these questionnaires such as the use of a well-defined agenda that gives the interview structure. On the other hand, disadvantages such as the inefficient use of expensive institutional time due to lengthy terminological explanations are exposed as well.
AsmußB. (2008). Performance appraisal interviews: Preference organization in assessment sequences. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 408-429.
2.
BroekhuisM.HolthuisM. (2004). Haal meer uit het functioneringsgesprek met uw baas[Get more out of the appraisal with your boss] (Taalanker [46]). Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Kluwer.
3.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness, some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4.
ButtnyR. (2001). Therapeutic humor in retelling the clients’ tellings. Text, 21, 303-327.
5.
CameronD. (2000). Good to talk. Living and working in a communication culture. London, England: Sage.
6.
CliftonJ. (2006). A conversation analytical approach to business communication: The case of leadership. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 202-219.
7.
CliftonJ. (2009). Beyond taxonomies of Influence: “Doing” influence and making decisions in management team meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 57-79.
8.
CliftonJ. (2012). Conversation analysis in dialogue with stocks of interactional knowledge: Facework and appraisal interviews. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 283-311. doi:10.1177/0021943612436974
9.
DrewP.HeritageJ. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Talk at work—Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65; Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, Vol. 8). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.
FletcherC. (2001). Performance appraisals and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473-487.
11.
GioiaD.DonnellonA.SimsH. (1989). Communication and cognition in appraisal. A tale of two paradigms. Organization Studies, 10, 503-530.
12.
GoffmanE. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
13.
GordonM.StewartL. (2009). Conversing about performance. Discursive resources for the appraisal interview. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, 473-501.
14.
GroteD. (2002). The performance appraisal. Question and answer book. A survival guide for managers. New York, NY: Amacom Books.
15.
HeritageJ.SorjonenM.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1-29.
16.
HolmesJ.StubbeM.VineB. (1999). Construction professional identity: “Doing power” in policy units. In SarangiS.RobertsC. (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 351-385). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
17.
Houtkoop-SteenstraH. (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18.
JansenC.SteehouderM.GysenM. (2004). Professioneel communiceren; Taal- en communicatiegids [Professional communication, language and communication guide]. Groningen, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers.
19.
KikoskiJ.LittererJ. (1983). Effective communication in the appraisal interview. Public Personnel Management, 12, 33-42.
20.
MarkkanenR.SchröderH. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In MarkkanenR.SchröderH. (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 3-18). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
21.
NevilleM. (2006). Making sequentiality salient: And-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots. Discourse Studies, 8, 309-332.
22.
NielsenM. F. (2009). Interpretative management in business meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 23-56.
23.
PeräkyläA.VehviläinenS. (2003). Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society, 14, 727-750.
24.
PonciniG. (2004). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings (Linguistic Insights, Vol. 13). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
25.
PotterJ. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, England: Sage.
26.
PrinceE. F.FraderJ.BoskC. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Di PietroR. J. (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83-97). New York, NY: Ablex.
27.
PuchtaC.PotterJ. (1999). Asking elaborate questions: Focus groups and the management of spontaneity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 314-335.
28.
RettingerS. (2011). Construction and display of competence and (professional) identity in coaching interactions. Journal of Business Communication, 48, 426-445.
29.
SinclairJ.BrazilD. (1982). Teacher talk. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
30.
Virkkula-RäisänenT. (2010). Linguistic repertoires and semiotic resources in interaction. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 505-531.
31.
WassonC. (2000). Caution and consensus in American business meetings. Pragmatics, 10, 457-481.
