Ratee preferences concerning performance management and appraisal

Abstract

A diverse sample of 265 employees was surveyed for ratee preferences concerning seven pevformance management and appraisal issues. Research questions were formulated on appraisal source, feedback issues, and the pevformance management process. Results indicated that subjects most trusted their immediate supervisor as a n accurate sourcefor their appraisal and that they preferred having prior knowledge of their supervisor's expectations, receiving ongoing informal feedback throughout the appraisal period, and receiving formal appraisals at least twice a year: Subjects expressed preferences for dcvclopmentally oriented appraisals that were based mostly on the results of work. Preferences were not moderated by ratee experience or gendcr: Implicationsfor human resource development professionals are discussed.Enormous energy has been spent in the search for "new, improved" formats to appraise employee performance (Nathan and Tippins, 1990). Rater training has also received attention, in hopes that it would help performance appraisal live up to its potential to impact organizations and their employees positively (Landy and Farr, 1980).Recently, attention has also been paid to contextual, political, and motivational issues related to appraisal (Bernardin, 1992; Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, and McKellen, 1993; Longenecker, Sims, and Gioia, 1987) as well as to the ongoing process of managing performance (Baird, 1986;Schneier, 1991). Performance appraisal has been described as a social and communication process where the rater is considered the key actor (Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). Surprisingly, however, little attention has been given thus far to another key actor in the appraisal process-the ratee.

Toward improved employment relations practices of casual employees in the New South Wales registered clubs industry

“…It is no surprise that employees find informal day-to-day feedback desirable. Research (Gosselin, Werner, and Halle, 1997) suggests that employees prefer a combination of formal and informal appraisal processes. Although annual appraisals were regarded as essential, there is a greater emphasis on continual feedback from supervisors, particularly feedback regarding performance outcomes.…”

Constructive Supervisor Feedback is not Sufficient: Immediacy and Frequency is Essential

“…Given the large number of potentially relevant feedback subdimensions, we conceptualize perceived constructiveness of feedback as a more global construct consisting of several subdimensions that have predicted work performance in prior feedback research and research on performance appraisal reactions (i.e., perceived as strength‐based, task‐ rather than person‐oriented, specific and easy to understand, and acceptable or accurate). Finally, we chose to investigate the immediate supervisor as the source of the feedback because he or she is the preferred source (Gosselin, Werner, & Hallé, ), and because the immediate supervisor is the agent of the organization (Kuvaas & Dysvik, ) that puts performance management into practice (den Hartog, Boselie, & Paauwe, ).…”

The impact of the perceived purpose of electronic performance monitoring on an array of attitudinal variables

“…Ratee reactions to intended or perceived purpose have been studied as well (Gosselin et al, 1997). Ratee reactions to the traditional performance appraisal purpose dichotomy (evaluative versus developmental) were found by Boswell and Boudreau (2000) to predict job-related attitudes such as satisfaction with the supervisor and the appraisal process overall.…”