Words versus numbers: A theoretical exploration of giving and receiving narrative comments in performance appraisal

Improving Feedback Reports: The Role of Procedural Information and Information Specificity

“…One way to improve outcomes following feedback is by varying the type and amount of information provided in feedback reports (Brutus, 2009;Goodman & Wood, 2004a;Smither & Walker, 2004). Given the widespread practice of providing learners with customized feedback reports both in electronic and paper format (e.g., Brutus, 2009), a better understanding of the effects of different types and amounts of information in these feedback reports might lead to cost-effective and practical strategies to enhance feedback interventions in management education.…”

“…Given the widespread practice of providing learners with customized feedback reports both in electronic and paper format (e.g., Brutus, 2009), a better understanding of the effects of different types and amounts of information in these feedback reports might lead to cost-effective and practical strategies to enhance feedback interventions in management education.…”

“…In response to this call, researchers have recently started to investigate the effects of type, amount and specificity of the information provided in feedback messages on performance and other feedback-related outcomes. For instance, the use of numeric, normative, or text feedback (Atwater & Brett, 2006), the specificity of the feedback presented (Goodman & Wood, 2004b), the amount of comments and whether they contain behavior-or task-focused information (Smither & Walker, 2004) and whether feedback is precise (Brutus, 2009;Brutus & Facteau, 2003) are all characteristics that have been found to be important in determining outcomes of feedback and performance improvement. In a recent review, Brutus (2009) (Brutus, 2009: 11).…”

The effects of performance report layout on managers’ subjective evaluation judgments

“…While both evaluators and evaluees generally prefer performance appraisal and feedback to take place through rich media channels (Mintzberg 1973, Brutus 2010, such as face-to-face meetings, evaluation and bonus determination of unit managers often takes the form of evaluators subjectively weighting a number of objective performance signals in a report to arrive at one overall rating. A better understanding of how evaluators deal with the inherent limitations of such performance evaluation systems will enable organizations to more optimally use the opportunities provided by modern technologies.…”

“…Lengel 1986, Russ et al 1990) posits that written and numeric documents such as these reports have relatively low information carrying capacity, compared to 'richer' media such as face-to-face meetings. Requiring managers to capture their evaluation of a subordinate in one key figure, and to base this figure on a collection of figures in a formal report, on the one hand reduces the potential for impression management and ambiguity in the evaluation process (Marginson 2006, Brutus 2010. On the other hand, it can also have negative consequences to the extent that less tangible aspects of an employee's performance remain unobserved, or more complex and equivocal issues are not given due weight in the evaluation (Russ et al 1990, Brutus 2010.…”