Agreement of supervisor and subordinate on (1) communications practices and (2) processes and outcomes in managing job performance and conducting interviews appraising performance were examined. Little agreement was present. In addition, supervisors generally held more favourable impressions of these experiences than did their subordinates. Possible reasons for this low agreement and implications for improving job performance and enhancing managerial skills are proposed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArgyrisC.SchonD. A.Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
2.
BairdL. S.Self and superior rating of performance: As related to self-esteem and satisfaction with supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20, 291–300.
3.
BurkeR. J.KemballJ.Some issues in performance appraisal. Canadian Journal of Personnel and Industrial Relations, 1971, 18, 25–34.
4.
BurkeR. J.WeitzelW.WeirT.Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 903–919.
5.
BurkeR. J.WeitzelW.WeirT.Characteristics of effective performance appraisal interviews: Do supervisors and subordinates agree?Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 643–654.
6.
BurkeR. J.WilcoxD. S.Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews. Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22, 291–305.
7.
DansereauF.GraenG.HagaW. J.A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 46–78.
8.
GeorgopolousB. S.MannF. C.The community general hospital. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
9.
GraenG.SchiemannW.Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 206–212.
10.
GrellerM. M.Subordinate participation and reaction to the appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 70, 544–549.
11.
HenemanH. G.Comparison of self and superior ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 59, 638–642.
12.
MaierN. R. F.HoffmanL. R.HoovenJ.ReadW. H.Superior-subordinate communication. New York: American Management Association, 1960.
13.
McGregorD. M.The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
14.
MeyerH. H.KayE.FrenchJ. R. P.Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 1965, 43, 123–129.
15.
NemeroffW. N.WexleyK. N.Relationships between performance appraisal interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by supervisors and subordinates. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, Florida, 1977.
16.
SmircichL.ChesserR. J.Supervisors' and subordinates' perceptions of performance: Beyond disagreement. Academy of Management Journal, 1981, 24, 198–205.
17.
ThorntonG. L.The relationship between supervisory and self-appraisals of executive performance. Personnel Psychology, 1968, 21, 441–456.
