This article examines the critical role of feedback in corporate performance appraisals, focusing on the construction of negative feedback in 15 performance appraisal processes at GlobalCorp, a small-sized Belgian company. Based on video-recordings, textual preparations and reports, and follow-up interviews with managers, we use a multipronged mixed-method approach to examine the position and importance of negative feedback in the company’s performance appraisal processes, and to explore how negative feedback is formulated and recontextualized throughout the different discursive phases of the individual performance appraisals. Our findings reveal an institutional need to formulate negative feedback clearly, but at the same time, the managers orient to it as a socially problematic action in both written and spoken form, despite its integral role in the appraisal process. Finally, this study underlines the importance of a tailored and multipronged methodological approach that allows for triangulation to reach in-depth insights on complex and multimodal datasets in business communication research.
AdamsK. L. (1981). Question/answer adjacency pairs in a performance appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 9(2), 72–84.
2.
AsmußB. (2008). Performance appraisal interviews: Preference organization in assessment sequences. Journal of Business Communication, 45(4), 408–429.
3.
BaumanR.BriggsC. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88.
4.
BowdenH. M.SandlundE. (2019). Knowledge talk in performance appraisal interviews. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21(2019), 278–292.
5.
CliftonJ. (2012). Conversation analysis in dialogue with stocks of interactional knowledge: Facework and appraisal interviews. Journal of Business Communication, 49(4), 283–311.
6.
CoorenF. (2000). The organizing property of communication. John Benjamins.
7.
CoplandF.CreeseA. (2015). Linguistic ethnography: Collecting, analysing and presenting data. Sage.
8.
De MalscheF.TobbackE.VandenbrouckeM. (2024). Multilingualism in performance appraisal interviews: Strategies to bridge language gaps. Frontiers in Communication, 9, Article 1343267.
9.
DefrancqB.VerliefdeS. (2018). Interpreter-mediated drafting of written records in police interviews: A case study. Target, 30(2), 212–239.
10.
DörnyeiZ. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
11.
DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
12.
FaircloughN. (1993). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
13.
FaircloughN. (2006). Language and globalization. Routledge.
14.
FletcherC. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473–487.
HallC. (1997). Social work as narrative: Storytelling and persuasion in professional texts. Routledge.
17.
HolmesJ. (2007). Monitoring organizational boundaries: Diverse discourse strategies used in gatekeeping. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1993–2016.
18.
HolmesJ.MarraM.VineB. (2011). Leadership, discourse, and ethnicity. Oxford University Press.
19.
JacobsM. (2023). “So you need to be able to tell it well”: On footing and genre in lawyer-client consultations in the field of asylum law. In AinsworthS.GriffithsD.MacroryG. (Eds.), Multimodality and multilingualism: Towards an integrative approach (pp. 70–87). Multilingual Matters.
20.
JeffersonG. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In LernerG. H. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
21.
LehtinenE.PälliP. (2021). On the participatory agency of texts: Using institutional forms in performance appraisal interviews. Text & Talk, 41(1), 47–69.
22.
LinellP. (1998). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text, 18(2), 143–157.
23.
MooreR. J.WhalenJ.GathmanE. C. H. (2010). The work of the work order: Document practice in face-to-face service encounters. In LlewellynN.HindmarshJ. (Eds.), Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 172–197). Cambridge University Press.
24.
NekvapilJ.ShermanT. (2009). Pre-interaction management in multinational companies in Central Europe. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(2), 181–198.
25.
NguyenM. T. T. (2005). Criticizing and responding to criticism in a foreign language: A study of Vietnamese learners of English [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Auckland.
26.
NyroosL.SandlundE. (2014). From paper to practice: Asking and responding to a standardized question item in performance appraisal interviews. Pragmatics and Society, 5(2), 165–190.
27.
ParkJ. S.BucholtzM. (2009). Introduction: Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk, 29(5), 485–502.
28.
PomerantzA. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
29.
RockF.HefferC.ConleyJ. (2013). Textual travel in legal-lay communication. In HefferC.RockF.ConleyJ. (Eds.), Legal-lay communication: Textual travels in the law (pp. 3–32). Oxford University Press.
30.
SacksH. (1973). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In ButtonG.LeeJ. R. E. (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.
31.
SandlundE.Olin-SchellerC.NyroosL.JakobsenL.NahnfeldtC. (2011). The performance appraisal interview: An arena for the reinforcement of norms of employeeship. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 1(2), 59–75.
32.
SarangiS.RobertsC. (1999). The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings. In SarangiS.RobertsC. (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 1–57). Mouton de Gruyter.
33.
ScheuerJ. (2014). Managing employees’ talk about problems in work in performance appraisal interviews. Discourse Studies, 16(3), 407–429.
34.
SlembrouckS. (2020). Bureaucracy. In J. Stanlaw (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology. Wiley Online Library.
35.
SlembrouckS.HallC. (2019). Advice giving, managing interruptions and the construction of ‘teachable moments’. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 1–21.
36.
SorsaV.PälliP.MikkolaP. (2014). Appropriating the words of strategy in performance appraisal interviews. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 56–83.
37.
SvennevigJ. (2012). The agenda as a resource for topic introduction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 53–66.
38.
SvinhufvudK.VehviläinenS. (2013). Papers, documents, and the opening of an academic supervision encounter. Text & Talk, 33(1), 139–166.
39.
TownleyB. (1993). Performance appraisal and the emergence of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(2), 221–238.
40.
Van De MieroopD.CarranzaI. E. (2018). The interactional ventriloquization of written records in the service of authority. International Review of Pragmatics, 10, 1–28.
41.
Van De MieroopD.SchnurrS. (2014). Negotiating meaning and co-constructing institutionalisable answers: Leadership through gate-keeping in performance appraisal interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 1–16.
42.
Van De MieroopD.SchnurrS. (2017). ‘Doing evaluation’ in the modern workplace: Negotiating the identity of ‘model employee’ in performance appraisal interviews. In AngouriJ.MarraM.HolmesJ. (Eds.), Negotiating boundaries at work: Talking and transitions (pp. 87–108). Edinburgh University Press.
43.
Van De MieroopD.VrolixE. (2014). A discourse analytical perspective on the professionalization of the performance appraisal interview. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(2), 159–182.
44.
WorthamS.ReyesA. (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. Routledge.
