research on performance appraisal suggests

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Performance Management Revolution

• Peter Cappelli

Hated by bosses and subordinates alike, traditional performance appraisals have been abandoned by more than a third of U.S. companies. The annual review’s biggest limitation, the authors argue, is its emphasis on holding employees accountable for what they did last year, at the expense of improving performance now and in the future. That’s why many organizations are moving to more-frequent, development-focused conversations between managers and employees.

The authors explain how performance management has evolved over the decades and why current thinking has shifted: (1) Today’s tight labor market creates pressure to keep employees happy and groom them for advancement. (2) The rapidly changing business environment requires agility, which argues for regular check-ins with employees. (3) Prioritizing improvement over accountability promotes teamwork.

Some companies worry that going numberless may make it harder to align individual and organizational goals, award merit raises, identify poor performers, and counter claims of discrimination—though traditional appraisals haven’t solved those problems, either. Other firms are trying hybrid approaches—for example, giving employees performance ratings on multiple dimensions, coupled with regular development feedback.

The focus is shifting from accountability to learning.

Idea in Brief

The problem.

By emphasizing individual accountability for past results, traditional appraisals give short shrift to improving current performance and developing talent for the future. That can hinder long-term competitiveness.

The Solution

To better support employee development, many organizations are dropping or radically changing their annual review systems in favor of giving people less formal, more frequent feedback that follows the natural cycle of work.

The Outlook

This shift isn’t just a fad—real business needs are driving it. Support at the top is critical, though. Some firms that have struggled to go entirely without ratings are trying a “third way”: assigning multiple ratings several times a year to encourage employees’ growth.

When Brian Jensen told his audience of HR executives that Colorcon wasn’t bothering with annual reviews anymore, they were appalled. This was in 2002, during his tenure as the drugmaker’s head of global human resources. In his presentation at the Wharton School, Jensen explained that Colorcon had found a more effective way of reinforcing desired behaviors and managing performance: Supervisors were giving people instant feedback, tying it to individuals’ own goals, and handing out small weekly bonuses to employees they saw doing good things.

• Peter Cappelli is the George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the Wharton School and the director of its Center for Human Resources. He is the author of several books, including Our Least Important Asset: Why the Relentless Focus on Finance and Accounting Is Bad for Business and Employees (Oxford University Press, 2023).
• AT Anna Tavis is a clinical associate professor of human capital management at New York University and the Perspectives editor at People + Strategy, a journal for HR executives.

Partner Center

Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay (1991)

Chapter: 8 findings and conclusions, 8 findings and conclusions.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) requested this study in preparation for reauthorization hearings, scheduled for 1991, on the troubled Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS). Our charge was to review the research on performance appraisal and on its use in linking compensation to performance. To supplement the research findings, we were asked to look at private-sector practice as well, to see if there are successful compensation systems based on performance appraisal that might provide guidance for policy makers in reforming PMRS. We construed this charge as requiring an investigation of whether and under what conditions performance appraisal in the context of merit pay systems could assist the federal government in managing performance, fostering employee equity, improving individual and organizational effectiveness, providing consistent and predictable personnel costs, and—not least—enhancing the legitimacy of public service.

The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 provides the backdrop for this study. That act required the development of job-related and objective performance appraisal systems, the results of which were to be used as a basis for training, promotion, reduction in grade, removal, and other personnel decisions. The act also created performance-based compensation systems for middle and senior managers. Designed to revitalize the civil service, in part by bringing private-sector management strategies to the federal bureaucracy, the reforms have by most measures fallen short of expectations, despite fairly substantial midcourse corrections. Yet the belief in merit principles remains strong, as does the expectation that performance appraisal and linking compensation to performance can provide incentives for excellence.

Policy makers already have extensive documentation of the problems and employee dissatisfactions with the Merit Pay System (MPS) and the successor PMRS: consistent underfunding of the merit pool, the lag of merit salaries behind the salaries of employees still under the General Schedule, the widely held and annually reinforced belief that federal salaries have fallen far behind their private-sector equivalents, and the perceived politicization of the civil service and the merit pay system that seemed to be an outgrowth of the Civil Service Reform Act. This study is intended to supplement that knowledge and experience with information drawn from the private sector, beginning with a systematic investigation of the research on performance appraisal and pay for performance systems and including an assessment of private-sector practices in the years since the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act.

We began the report with a cautionary note about the difficulties inherent in trying to measure social phenomena in general, and about the particular evidentiary obstacles presented by the subject at hand ( Chapter 3 ). Our research has taken us into the literature of a variety of disciplines as we tried to piece together from fragmentary evidence the best possible scientific understanding of the adequacy of performance appraisal as a basis for making personnel decisions and of the effectiveness of using pay to improve performance. Investigation of the effects of linking compensation to performance led us from the question of individual effectiveness to organizational effectiveness and required an examination of both merit and variable pay plans. Recent research trends also broadened the scope of the study beyond measurement instruments and appraisal processes to an examination of context and the attempt to identify conditions under which performance appraisal and merit plans operate best.

In the course of our investigations it became clear that the theoretical and empirical literatures have posited at least four different types of benefits in discussing performance-based pay systems: (1) positive effects on the work behaviors of individual employees (including decisions to join an organization, attend, perform, and remain); (2) increased organization-level effectiveness; (3) facilitating socialization and communication; and (4) enhancing the perceived legitimacy of an organization to important internal and external constituencies.

We have been ecumenical in pulling together evidence and information that speak to these criteria for gauging the effectiveness of an organization's performance appraisal and pay systems. The preceding pages have taken account of theory, empirical research, and clinical studies not only from many disciplines, but also from any research topics that seemed relevant. The formal evidence has been supplemented with information about current practices in private-sector firms.

The study's findings and conclusions are presented in this chapter as follows. The first section deals with the science and practice of performance appraisal, focusing first on measurement research, then on applied research, and ending with overall findings and conclusions. The second section covers

performance-based pay systems, focusing first on evidence from research, then on findings from practice, and again ending with overall findings and conclusions. The third section deals with the influence of context on performance appraisal and merit pay systems. The fourth section deals with the implications of the study's findings and conclusions for federal policy making.

I. THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

The evaluation of workers' performance is directed toward two fundamental goals. The first of these is to create a measure that accurately assesses the level of an individual's performance on something called the job . The second is to create a performance measurement system that will advance one or more operational functions in an organization: personnel decisions, compensation policy, communication of organizational objectives, and facilitation of employee performance.

Although all performance appraisal systems encompass both goals, the two are represented in the literature by two distinct, albeit overlapping, lines of development in theory and research. In part the difference in approach to performance appraisal reflects disciplinary orientation, in part historical development. One approach grows out of psychometrics and the measurement tradition, with its emphasis on standardization, objective measurement, psychometric properties (validity, reliability, bias, etc.). The other comes from the more applied fields—human resource management, industrial and organizational psychology, organization science, sociology—and focuses on the organizational context and the usefulness of performance appraisal for such things as promoting communication between managers and employees; clarifying organizational goals and performance expectations; providing information for managers to guide retention, dismissal, and promotion decisions; informing performance-based pay decisions; and motivating employees.

Both research fields are interested in the use of rating scales to evaluate job performance, although they have tended to focus on different questions and have different expectations of performance appraisal. At the risk of overemphasizing the distinctions, we have presented our discussion in this report in two parts, one focused on the measurement research, the second on the applied research. It is, however, a matter of general orientation, not unrelated polarities.

Of the two goals, accuracy and organizational utility, most of the research in the measurement tradition has concentrated on aspects of accuracy, the implicit assumption being that if the measures are accurate, the functional goals will be met. Research in the more applied fields tends to focus not on the measurement instrument and the accuracy of inferences drawn from the measurement, but on the whole operational system of which it is a part. The applied or management perspective tends to evaluate the performance measurement component by how well the whole operates, e.g., whether the system distributes pay as it was

designed to, whether the system is accepted by all players. Accuracy of performance measurement tends to be ignored, not because it is considered unimportant, but because it is assumed, at least implicitly, that if the system-level criteria are met, then the measurement component must be sufficiently accurate.

Apart from our own convenience in presenting findings from the measurement and applied traditions separately, it is important that federal policy makers, managers' groups, and employees understand these differences and tailor their language and expectations appropriately. Current federal policy is couched in the language of the measurement tradition. In the manner of the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures , which elaborates the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Office of Personnel Management regulations implementing the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 called on federal agencies to develop job-related and objective performance appraisal systems. The regulations required that performance standards and critical job elements be specified consistent with the duties and responsibilities outlined in an employee's position description. OPM suggested that performance standards be based on a job analysis to identify the critical elements of a job, and that each agency develop a method for evaluating its system to ensure its validity. Although courts have not demanded of performance appraisal systems the degree of rigor required of tests and other selection instruments, the terms validity, objectivity , and job-relatedness are all drawn from the context of psychological testing and performance measurement.

The Measurement Tradition

Psychometrics grows out of the theory of individual differences, namely, that humans possess characteristics and traits (e.g., height, verbal ability, upperbody strength); that each possesses these characteristics in some amount; and that the amounts can be measured. Drawing on findings in the biological sciences about the distribution of characteristics in a given plant or animal population, the founders of psychological measurement developed statistical techniques for expressing human mental characteristics and for relating the standing of one individual to that of a population of individuals. From the beginning, these theories and measurement techniques were thought to hold great promise for matching people to jobs and for measuring job performance. They were also particularly compatible with the concept of meritocracy and the particularly American idea that jobs ought to be allocated on the basis of talent or ability and not as a function of family connection, social class, religious persuasion, or other criteria that are irrelevant to job performance.

In the realm of psychometrics, the scientific imperative is accuracy of measurement. Standardized multiple-choice tests, the most familiar type of instrument in this mode, are a product of that drive for precise measurement.

Just as test administration can be controlled to provide a high degree of consistency and uniformity in the conditions of testing, so does the format of the tests constrain response possibilities to allow direct comparison of the performance of all test takers. Over the years a variety of sophisticated statistical analytics have been developed to evaluate the consistency of measurement (reliability analyses) and the accuracy and relevance of inferences drawn from the measurement results (validity analyses).

Prior to 1980, most research on performance appraisal was generated from within the psychometric tradition. Performance appraisals were viewed in much the same way as tests: they were evaluated against criteria for validity and reliability and freedom from bias, and a primary goal of the research was to reduce rating errors.

Our findings on how closely performance appraisal has been found to conform to these aspirations of measurement science follow.

Research on Job Analysis

Findings: job analysis.

Applied psychologists have used job analysis as a primary means for understanding and describing job performance. There have been a number of approaches to job analysis over the years, including the job element method, the critical incident method, the Air Force task inventory approach, and methods that rely on structured questionnaires to describe managerial-level jobs in large organizations. All of these methods share certain assumptions about good job analysis practices, and all are based on a variety of empirical sources of information.

There is an enormous body of job analysis research, the preponderance of which has been conducted for relatively simple, concrete jobs—military enlisted jobs, auto mechanics, sales, and other jobs characterized by observable behaviors or tangible products. The literature on complex, interactive, cognitively loaded jobs, and specifically on managerial jobs, is comparatively sparse and less conclusive.

With few exceptions, the analysis of managerial performance is cast at a high level of abstraction; far less attention has been given to the sort of detailed, task-centered definition typical of simpler, more concrete jobs. This global focus is reflected in managerial appraisal instruments, which typically present very broad performance dimensions for evaluation.

A job may be more or less routinized, structured, and constrained by the requirements of machinery or defined by training, but the evaluation of job performance will always depend in the final analysis on external judgments about what is most important (number of units produced or quality of the

units produced; everyday performance or response to the infrequent emergency; single-minded pursuit of profits or avoidance of environmental damage).

As a consequence, describing job performance is not a straightforward or obvious process. Even for simple jobs, it involves judgment and inference combined with careful study of the job by such means as interviews, observation, and collection of data on tasks performed and skills required. For managerial jobs, the task of adequate description becomes even more difficult, because much of what a manager does is fragmented, amorphous, and involves unobservable cognitive activities.

Job descriptions and the appraisal systems based on them reflect organizational values and judgments as well as some independent constellation of job tasks and performance requirements. To speak of objectivity with regard to job analysis and performance appraisal does not imply the absence of human judgment, but rather the absence of irrelevant or inappropriate judgments.

Conclusions: Job Analysis

The commonly made dichotomy between objective and subjective measurement is more misleading than useful in the field of performance appraisal.

Organizations cannot use job analyses or other methods of specifying critical elements and performance standards as replacements for managerial judgment; at best such procedures can inform the manager and help focus the appraisal process.

The abstract character of the behaviors (e.g., leadership, oral communications, overall performance) that typifies much of the research on managerial job performance conveys a message from the research community about the nature of managerial performance and about the infeasibility of capturing its essence through lists of tasks, duties, and standards that can be objectively counted or quantified. Reliance on global measures guarantees that evaluation of a manager's performance is of necessity based on a substantial degree of judgment. An overly literal interpretation of the requirements of the Civil Service Reform Act—taking job-related to mean job-specific, or treating objective as the opposite of judgment, would be particularly destructive for managerial appraisal.

Research on Psychometric Properties

Reliability.

Reliability analysis provides an index of the consistency of measurement, from occasion to occasion, from form to form (if there are several versions of a test or measure that are all intended to measure the same thing), or from rater to rater. The first- and last-mentioned types of reliability analysis are particularly pertinent to performance appraisal. If the measurements are to

have any meaning, one would expect the rater to reach the same judgment from one week to the next (assuming the employee's performance did not change significantly), just as one would hope that several raters would reach substantially the same decision about a single individual's performance. Data on reliability derive in part from operational settings and in part from laboratory experiments or from research projects undertaken in field settings, using special rating instruments developed for the purpose and administered with the proviso that no operational decisions will be based on the results.

Findings: Reliability

There is substantial evidence in the research literature to support the premise that supervisors are capable of forming reasonably reliable estimates of their employees' overall performance levels. For the mostly nonmanagerial jobs studied over the years, raters show substantial agreement in rating workers' performance. There is also some data showing interrater agreement on managerial performance.

It is important to remember, however, that consistency among raters cannot be taken simply at face value as proof of the accuracy of performance appraisal procedures; it can also cloak systematic bias or systematic error in valuing performance. Systematic bias is difficult to detect, the more so if it is the product of unexamined views and conventional assumptions. There is evidence of such bias, fragmentary but suggestive, in a small number of studies showing that white supervisors tend to rate white employees as a group somewhat higher than black employees and, conversely, that black supervisors rate black employees higher on average. The studies have not been able to distinguish between real performance differences and rater bias but suggest the presence of both, although the variance accounted for by bias appears to be quite small.

From the psychometric perspective, the central question posed by any measurement system is whether it produces an accurate assessment of relevant performance. Validity is the technical term used to refer to the degree of accuracy and relevance that characterizes a measurement procedure. It is not meant to imply a static characteristic of a test or rating scale; rather, the term has to do with the structure of meaning that can be built up to support the assessment results. Validity, therefore, is an accretion of evidence from many sources; it describes a research process that gradually lends confidence to the interpretations or judgments made on the basis of the measure.

In the realm of job performance, validation begins in an important sense with an analysis of the job or category of jobs for which performance measures are to be developed. If an employment test or appraisal system can be linked to important aspects of the job—say typing accuracy and speed or a sonar

technician's skill at recognizing patterns—then one building block is in place. The evidence of interrater reliabilities described above can provide another sort of clue to the accuracy of measurement systems like performance ratings, hands-on job sample tests, and other procedures that depend on an observer to judge the performance. Statisticians and psychometricians have developed an array of sophisticated statistical methods to explore the relationships between the test or measure under study and other relevant variables (correlational and regression analysis, multivariate analysis and ANOVA techniques).

Findings: Validity

Performance appraisal does not lend itself to the full complement of validation strategies that have been found useful for standardized tests. Criterion-related validity, for example, is rarely as useful for evaluating performance appraisals as it is with selection tests. The strength of the approach lies in showing that a healthy relationship exists between, say, test results and some independent, operational performance measure (e.g., college admissions test and grade-point average). When the measure being validated is itself a behavioral measure, it is difficult to find relevant operational measures for comparison that have the essential independence. As a consequence, what is frequently considered a compelling type of evidence in validation research is usually not possible for performance appraisals. Furthermore, in those limited conditions in which independent criteria do exist, the jobs themselves tend to be much more simple and straightforward than those for which appraisals are typically used.

It is, however, possible to compare performance appraisals to other measures of job performance using the conventional statistical methods of psychometric analysis. Recent military job performance measurement research, for example, demonstrated moderate correlations between supervisor ratings and each of the other types of criterion measures developed (hands-on test scores, training grades, written job knowledge tests), which lends credibility to the claim that carefully developed performance appraisals can bear a meaningful degree of relationship to actual job performance.

Supervisor ratings have been used in thousands of studies designed to examine the power of cognitive and other ability tests to predict job performance—in other words, they have been used to validate employment tests. These studies consistently show a low to moderate observed correlation between employment tests and supervisor ratings; job incumbents who score well on the test tend also to receive good ratings and those with low test scores tend to be rated as mediocre performers. While admittedly circular, this relationship provides further indirect evidence that supervisors can rate their employees with some degree of (but by no means perfect) accuracy; whether they will do so in an operational setting is another matter.

Scale Characteristics

A wide variety of rating scale formats, defining performance dimensions at varying levels of specificity, exist. Commonly used rating dimensions include personal traits (e.g., initiative, leadership, perseverance), job behaviors (e.g., follows safety procedures in engine room, financial management, interpersonal relations), and performance results (e.g., quality of work, quantity of work). The number of scale points has ranged as high as 11, but most appraisal scales have between 3 and 5.

In terms of scale format, a general distinction can be made between scales that include specific behavioral examples of good, average, and inadequate performance and those that do not. The latter, called graphic scales, simply list the dimension of interest and present a number of scale points along a continuum. The scale points, or anchors, can be numerical or adjectival (e.g., consistently superior, average, consistently unsatisfactory).

Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) were developed to reduce some of the rating error typical of graphic scales. Proponents thought that BARS would help to clarify the meaning of the performance dimensions used and would help calibrate various raters' definition of what constitutes superior, average, and unsatisfactory performance on the dimension. It was also felt that the behavioral descriptions would discourage the tendency to rate on broad, general traits by focusing attention on specific work behaviors. Mixed standard scales, also behaviorally based, went one step further in trying to control rater error, particularly bias and leniency. These scales present the behavioral descriptions in random order and not in conjunction with a particular performance dimension. The rater's responses are computed by someone else into a performance score for each dimension measured.

Findings: Rating Format

Reviews of the relevant research suggest that behaviorally based scales have not met early expectations. Although the research findings are not entirely consistent, the consensus seems to be that scale formats have relatively little impact on psychometric quality, when impact is indexed by interrater agreement, rater errors, and convergent and discriminant validity of ratings. In other words, the use of behavioral versus nonbehavioral language and the physical arrangement of the scale do not appear to be critical in terms of the validity of the overall judgments about performance. 1

This proposition is given support by the research on the cognitive processes involved in performance appraisal done in the 1980s. This body of research suggests that the distinction between behaviors and traits is not as salient as once thought. Raters appear to rely less on specific behaviors than on their general evaluation of each employee when they make ratings, regardless of the focus of the rating scale. These general evaluations substantially affect raters' memory for and evaluation of actual work behaviors.

Finding: Job-Specific Versus Global Ratings

In litigation dealing with performance appraisal, the courts have shown a clear preference for job-specific dimensions. There is little research that directly addresses the validity of ratings obtained on job-specific, general, or global dimensions. Indirect evidence suggests that raters may work at the global level in any case. First, there is the evidence from the research on cognitive processes mentioned in finding number 2 above. In addition, there is a substantial body of research on halo error in ratings that shows that raters do not, for the most part, distinguish between conceptually distinct aspects of performance in rating their workers. This suggests that similar outcomes can be expected from rating scales that use global or job-specific performance dimensions.

Finding: Number of Scale Points or Anchors

The weight of the evidence suggests that the reliability of ratings drops if there are fewer than 3 or more than 9 rating categories. Recent work indicates that there is little to be gained from having more than 5 response categories. Within that range (3 to 5), there is no evidence that there is one best number of scale points in terms of scale quality.

Conclusion: Psychometric Properties

The combination of research on job analysis, research on the reliability of appraisal results, and the direct and indirect evidence of a modest relationship between performance ratings and other sorts of measures (employment tests, other measures of job performance) leads us to conclude that the performance appraisal process, while by no means high-precision measurement, can achieve moderate levels of accuracy within the assumptions of the measurement tradition.

The Applied Tradition

The focus of psychometric theory and research tends to be on the rating instrument, its measurement properties, and standardization of raters to reduce error. Researchers in the organizational sciences and human resource management tradition, which is more attuned to applied settings and operational systems, concentrate more on the appraisal system and how it functions to serve organizational ends. From this point of view, performance ratings are not the equivalent of testing technology, and the concentration of research energies on questions of job analysis, scale development, scale format, and measurement precision is misguided.

There are others closer to the measurement tradition who also have begun to feel that the psychometric lines of inquiry have become arid and are unlikely to bring about large additional improvements in the way performance appraisals are used in organizations (Banks and Murphy, 1985; Ilgen et al., 1989). A number of industrial psychologists in the last decade have begun to move away from the traditional view of performance appraisal as a measurement problem; rather than treating it as a measurement tool, they have begun to look on performance appraisal as a social and communication process (Murphy and Cleveland, 1991). Although such scholars do not reject the idea of accuracy, they tend to take a more commonsense approach, talking of the ''relevance" of the appraisal to job performance, and to concentrate much more on the contextual factors that support or distort appraisal systems.

From this perspective, the interesting research questions about performance appraisal systems are whether they enrich managerial judgment and improve employee understanding of organizational goals and standards of performance; encourage more communication between managers and employees; communicate a sense of equity and fair play in the distribution of rewards and penalties by making visible the grounds of these decisions; and enhance employee trust and acceptance. While none of these questions can be divorced from the accuracy-validity issues, the answers tend to be sought in evidence of system-level outcomes. Research on the effectiveness of performance appraisal looks at such questions as employee attitudes toward the system, the degree to which it serves individual needs (feedback, employee development) or organizational needs (communication of mission, meritocratic principles), and the degree to which it enhances (or destroys) cohesion in the work unit or organization. And, as many of these points of emphasis indicate, there is a great deal of emergent interest in the organizational context in which appraisals occur.

Although this reorientation is quite recent among applied psychologists, our review of the literature included several bodies of research in organizational psychology and management science that contribute to an understanding of how appraisal systems function as part of an organization's performance management system. These include: (1) performance appraisal and motivation, (2)

approaches to assisting supervisors in making high-quality ratings, and (3) the types and sources of rating distortion that can be anticipated in an organizational context, particularly when the results of the performance appraisal are linked to decisions about employees' pay increases.

Performance Appraisal and Motivation

Information about performance is believed to influence work motivation in three ways. First, in expectancy theory, performance information is thought to provide the basis for the employee to form beliefs about the causal connection between performance and pay. Second, performance information is believed to affect motivation by creating a sense of accomplishment; this sense of accomplishment provides an incentive to maintain high performance. Third, it is proposed that performance information provides cues to the employee about which behaviors should be continued and which should be dropped or modified.

Findings: Performance Appraisal and Motivation

The empirical research needed to support these motivational models is ambiguous as well as spotty. There is some survey data, including data on the federal Performance Management and Recognition System, that indicates that the feedback from performance appraisal helps some employees understand the job and performance expectations better. Whether that translates into better performance is unclear. At the same time, there is survey evidence indicating that appraisal information is less likely to be an accurate source of information than informal interactions with the supervisor, talking with coworkers, specific indicators provided by the job itself, and personal feelings.

The performance feedback literature, which also draws heavily on survey data, indicates that the credibility of the supervisor is crucial to acceptance of appraisal information. That credibility appears to depend heavily on the supervisor's perceived degree of knowledge about the employee's job and degree of interest in the employee's welfare.

A frequent research finding is that employees rate their own performance higher than do their supervisors. This is supported by evidence that people are likely to accept positive information about themselves and to reject negative information. Both of these inclinations would tend to dilute the motivational influence of any critical performance appraisals.

Approaches to Increasing Rating Quality

Several approaches have been used to increase the quality of performance ratings. These have included developing training programs for supervisors responsible for providing performance appraisals and developing appraisal scales

that explicitly guide the rater through both performance observation and performance assessment.

Finding: Increasing Rating Quality

The research results on rater training are mixed. A number of recent research reviews have concluded that rater training has not been highly effective in increasing the accuracy of ratings. However, there is some contrary evidence suggesting that training can lead to more accurate ratings—particularly training that focuses on the rating process and on the use of specific rating tools. Thus training seems indicated if the performance appraisal system involves scales that require complicated procedures or calculations.

Sources of Rating Distortion

Performance ratings are subject to distortion from many quarters, no matter how carefully designed the appraisal instrument. The measurement research has concentrated on statistical analysis to detect rater bias and rater errors such as halo and leniency. The organizational context adds greatly to our understanding of likely sources of distortion. It is widely assumed, for example, that the uses of the rating data in an organization will influence the appraisal process and outcomes. There are also strains in the motivational literature suggesting that supervisors distort ratings, among other reasons, to achieve outcomes they value, to bolster feelings of fairness in the work group, or to avoid demotivating employees with brutal ratings.

Findings: Sources of Rating Distortion

There is evidence from both laboratory and field studies to support the assumption that the intended use of performance ratings influences results. The most consistent finding is that ratings used to make operational decisions (e.g., pay, promotion) are more lenient than ratings used for research purposes or for feedback.

While the predictions from the motivational literature seem reasonable, empirical research on motivational factors in rating distortion is understandably rare. Little is known about the factors actually considered by raters when they decide how to fill out their rating forms. There is some revealing clinical evidence, however. A number of researchers have reported, based on interview data, that supervisors consciously manipulate appraisals to achieve desired outcomes, such as maximizing the chances that deserving employees get promoted.

Whatever the exact nature of the environmental sources of rating distortion, organizations have adopted a number of devices to deal with it. Some

private-sector firms deal with rating inflation by requiring a forced distribution in which the majority of ratings are allocated to the middle two or three categories—this provides for only a few outstanding ratings and encourages a few less-than-satisfactory ratings. Some companies decouple the performance rating from pay decisions by interposing a negotiation among relevant supervisors to rank all employees with similar jobs, thereby hoping to combat inflation and lessen the negative consequences of disappointing pay outcomes on the relationship of supervisor and employee.

Findings From Practice

Our review of performance appraisal practices in the private sector suggests that most organizations focus on the process, rather than the design aspects, of performance appraisal. For example, few organizations conduct regular updates to job analyses and job descriptions or fund validation studies. Indeed validity and reliability do not seem to enter the vocabulary of private-sector human resource managers as a rule, a finding of no great surprise since only a few of the larger companies (Sears, AT&T) have an in-house personnel testing and measurement research capability. In contrast, there is nearly universal use of objective-based formats for managers and professionals; this format allows for joint manager-employee participation in defining performance objectives and, in some organizations, interim changes to objectives according to organization or individual needs.

In addition, some organizations use joint management meetings for ranking employees after initial performance ratings are completed; these meetings provide a forum for negotiating the basic norms of "acceptable" individual performance for similar jobs or job areas. Such meetings recognize the process aspects of performance appraisal—that norms change, that raters change, that context is important, that individual judgments need to be calibrated against group norms. Our interviews with personnel managers suggested that their process emphasis also includes communications to managers and other employees about the role of performance appraisal in the context of the organization's other meritocratic practices and culture, and the insistence that performance appraisal is an important, ongoing part of a manager's job. These companies tend to assess the effectiveness of performance appraisal via its influence on employee perceptions of equity and job satisfaction, rather than with measures of performance improvements or cost reductions.

All of this emphasis on process and the use of performance appraisal systems to reinforce the idea of a meritocratic personnel context is consistent with the current research interest in performance appraisal as a social and communication process rather than a measurement tool. However, it does not address the question of the accuracy of the rating decisions or the effects of using an appraisal system on individual or corporate performance.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: OVERALL FINDINGS

We have to some extent caricatured two different approaches to performance appraisal—the one preoccupied with psychometrics and precision measurement, the other focused on the utility and acceptance of performance appraisal. Clearly, both sets of considerations are important. The appropriate balance in devoting resources to measurement issues versus process issues will obviously depend on the specifics of the situation.

However, we wish to call attention to two sets of findings that suggest that there may be diminishing returns to focusing on the measurement properties of appraisal scales in the federal context.

Findings: Quality of the Instrument

There is no compelling evidence that one appraisal format is significantly better than another. The improvements in accuracy and precision that were at one time anticipated from the use of behaviorally anchored rating scales have not been convincingly demonstrated as yet—not in a way that would justify the very expensive and labor-intensive development of such scales for federal jobs generally. Although there is far less evidence on the subject, global ratings do not appear to produce very different results from job-specific ratings.

Assuming that reasonable care has been taken in the development of scales and the training of raters, the reliability and validity of performance appraisal systems does not appear to be improved by fine-tuning the format of the appraisal instrument or the number of rating anchors used.

The reliability and validity of performance appraisal systems established in the context of research or laboratory settings cannot necessarily be expected to translate directly into operational settings. We know, for example, that when performance ratings are used in the context of merit pay allocations, managers tend to inflate ratings. We know too that specifying behaviors of interest in the appraisal format (e.g., BARS or management-by-objective systems) can lead managers to ignore other aspects of job performance, particularly those that are difficult to reduce to concrete terms, that may be equally important to successful performance.

There is virtually no research establishing the predictive validity of performance appraisal measures, tools, and approaches for measures of organizational effectiveness aggregated to the level of the office, division, or firm. (This statement says more about the state of the analytical tools available to social scientists than perhaps about performance appraisal.)

Findings: Costs of Psychometric Sophistication

Psychometrically sound performance measures based on job analysis and supported by a substantial empirical research base are both difficult and costly to generate and to maintain.

One could infer from current practice that the payoffs of trying to maximize and demonstrate the scientific validity of measures of job performance are not perceived to justify the costs—or that there is simply little felt need to do so. Few organizations attempt to establish the scientific validity of performance appraisal using typical psychometric procedures. The focus in applied settings appears to be on performance appraisal as a means of supporting an ethos of meritocratic personnel decisions, and on the development and administration of performance appraisal in ways that foster employee perceptions of equity and fairness—using goal setting formats, using joint management negotiations to define job performance norms, and measuring employee perceptions of performance appraisal fairness. There is virtually no measurement of the effects of performance appraisal on ongoing organization-level performance or cost reduction measures.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: OVERALL CONCLUSION

Given the expense and difficulty of developing appraisal systems that conform to the exacting requirements of the measurement tradition; given the very modest returns to that investment that have been documented empirically; given the widespread lack of concern with this level of precision among firms using performance appraisal; given the absence of convincing evidence linking performance appraisal to organization-level outcomes—we find it impossible to conclude that federal policy makers should commit vast new human and financial resources to job analyses and the development of performance appraisal instruments and systems that can meet the strict constructionist challenge of measurement science.

Many applied psychologists and management experts feel that the search for such a high degree of precision in measurement is not economically viable in most applied settings—some believe that there is little to be gained from this level of precision over currently accepted sound practices.

Policy makers need to consider carefully where on the spectrum, between psychometric measurement and impressionistic measurement, performance appraisal for the civil service should be aimed. The purposes of the appraisal system should enter into the decision. There seems little doubt that for purposes of communication and feedback, the demands for scientific precision will not overwhelm cost considerations. For controversial decisions such as dismissal or pay, the question becomes more difficult.

However, it is important to remember that line supervisors are usually

in a position to know their employees well and to have far more information available to them than the consumers of standardized test results—say, a college admissions committee.

These considerations lead us to conclude that for most personnel management decisions, including annual pay decisions, the goal of a performance appraisal system should be to support and encourage informed managerial judgment and not to aspire to a degree of standardization, precision, and empirical support that would be required of, for example, selection tests.

In this context, informed judgment means that there are demonstrable and credible links between the performance of the individuals being rated and the supervisor's evaluation of that performance.

II. Performance-Based Pay Systems

The label pay for performance covers a broad spectrum of compensation systems that can be clustered under two general categories: merit pay plans and variable pay plans. The latter category can be further divided in two, namely, individual incentive plans and the currently popular group incentive plans. Although the charge to the committee was couched in terms of merit pay plans, we extended the scope of our review to include pay for performance and compensation research more generally. This was in part for the sake of experience—we found virtually no research on the effects of merit pay systems on the performance of individuals or organizations, and so were forced to turn elsewhere to explore the question. But we also rapidly realized that the effects of performance-based pay plans on individual and organizational performance cannot be easily disentangled from the broader context of an organization's structures, management strategies, and personnel systems.

We have distinguished performance-based pay plans along two dimensions. The first represents design variation in the level of performance measurement—individual or group—to which payouts are tied. The second represents design variation in the plan's contribution to base pay—some are added into base pay, some are not.

In merit pay plans, the locus of attention is individual performance. As an important element in a meritocratic personnel system, merit pay plans link annual pay increases, at least in part, to how well the incumbent has performed on the job. As a consequence, performance appraisal is at the heart of most merit plans. Payouts allocated under merit plans are commonly added into the individual's base salary. The payouts are typically not large (on average 5 percent, with a range of 2 to 12 percent), but their addition to base pay offers the potential for significant long-term salary growth.

In the most common individual incentive plans—piece rate plans and sales

on commission—payouts are not added to base salary. Although the payouts can be large, they also carry the risk to the individual of no payout if performance thresholds are not met.

Group incentive plans differ from the two preceding types in basing compensation decisions on unit or system performance rather than individual performance. Thus profit-sharing plans or equity plans link employees' payouts to the overall fortunes of the firm as measured by some indicator of its financial health. Although payouts can be large in good times, they are not usually added to base pay—hence the designation variable pay plan.

All pay for performance plans are designed to deliver pay increases to employees based, at least in part, on some measure of performance. In theory, such plans offer several potential benefits:

They can support the organization's personnel philosophy by helping to communicate the organization's goals to its employees. For example, if financial goals are paramount, then a pay for performance plan tied to the achievement of financial goals (e.g., a profit-sharing plan) helps reinforce their importance for employees.

Goal theory also suggests that performance-based pay plans can support a certain level of performance that is consistent with the organization's mission. For example, a plan that pays out when financial goals are almost met (80 percent) sends a different message to employees than one that pays out only when goals are completely met (100 percent). Likewise, if employees receive no pay increase when their performance appraisal is below some work force norm, then they are more likely to attend to that norm.

They can help ensure consistency in the distribution of pay increases. For example, under a plan that ties pay increases to a specific financial goal, payouts are distributed only when that goal is met. Under a merit plan, pay increases are distributed consistently to employees who are in the same pay grade, who are in the same position in grade, and who have the same performance appraisal ratings. This helps the organization predict and regulate the price tag for merit increases.

Motivation theory suggests that pay for performance can positively influence individuals to achieve goals that are rewarded. To the extent that these goals contribute to organizational effectiveness, we can infer that pay for performance can influence individual and organizational effectiveness.

Before turning to the research findings, it is important to note that performance-based pay is only one dimension of employee compensation; other dimensions include competitiveness of salaries with the marketplace, benefits packages, cost-of-living considerations, and others. The effects of merit or variable pay plans will depend in good measure on this larger compensation context.

EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH

Organizations design pay systems to accomplish three objectives: attracting, retaining, and motivating employees to perform; advancing the fair and equitable treatment of employees; and regulating labor costs. We have reviewed the research literature to see how pay for performance plans, and particularly merit pay plans, influence an organization's ability to meet these objectives.

Employee Motivation

The research most directly related to questions about the impact of performance-based pay plans on individual and organizational performance comes from theory and empirical study of work motivation. Motivation theories that have been well tested empirically predict that employee motivation is enhanced, and the likelihood of desired performance increased, under pay for performance plans when: (1) employees understand performance goals and view them as "doable" given their own abilities and skills and the restrictions posed by organization context; (2) there is a clear link between performance and pay increases, consistently communicated and followed; and (3) the pay increase is viewed as meaningful.

Findings: Employee Motivation

Most of the research examining the relationship between pay for performance plans and performance is focused on individual incentive plans such as piece rates. By design, these plans most closely approximate the ideal motivational conditions prescribed by expectancy and goal-setting theory.

Empirical research indicates that individual incentive plans can motivate employees and improve individual performance.

Individual incentive plans are most likely to improve performance in (a) simple, structured jobs in which employees are relatively autonomous; (b) work settings in which employees trust management to set fair performance goals; and (c) a stable economic environment.

Merit pay plans do not conform as closely as individual incentive plans to the theoretical conditions thought to be conducive to improved performance. Although merit plans also focus on individual performance, the link between performance and pay increase is less concrete; pay increase guidelines typically consider position and time in grade as well as performance rating; and pay increases tend to be small and therefore do not clearly differentiate outstanding from average or even poor performance. These characteristics may dilute their potential to motivate employees.

There is very little empirical research on merit pay plans. What exists is mixed and defies firm conclusions about the relationship between such plans and either individual or group performance. There are a number of field

studies suggesting that managers and professionals under a merit pay system (as opposed to a straight seniority system or no formal system) express more job satisfaction and perceive a stronger tie between pay and performance. Other studies suggest that these effects may be tenuous.

Some group incentive plans retain many of the motivational features of individual incentive plans (quantitative performance goals, relatively large and frequent payouts), but it is not easy for individuals to see how their performance contributes to group- or organizational-level measures, so the motivational link is weakened. More to the point, payouts may occur only in good times and are dependent on larger environmental and economic forces beyond the control of the individual employee.

There is a modest body of research evidence drawn from private-sector experience that suggests that gainsharing and profit-sharing plans are associated with improved group- or organizational-level productivity and financial performance. This research does not, however, allow us to disentangle the effects of the pay plans on performance from many other contextual conditions. We cannot say that group plans cause performance changes or specify how they do.

Finding: Attraction and Retention

The empirical research examining the relationship of pay to an employer's ability to attract and retain high-performing employees is limited, and there is almost no research on the impact of pay for performance plans on these objectives. We have found but one experimental study (involving white-collar workers in Navy labs) that relates retention to the adoption of a merit pay system. The study reported considerable reduction in turnover among superior performers. One study, however, is not sufficient to support a general finding.

Fairness and Equity

Organizations want their pay systems to be viewed as fair by multiple stakeholders: employees, managers, owners, and top managers; those at one remove, such as unions, associations, and regulatory agencies; and the public. Theories of organizational justice distinguish between distributive and procedural justice. The former predicts that the employee judges the fairness of pay level or pay raises in comparison with other people or groups considered similar in terms of contribution. Theories of procedural justice link employees' job satisfaction to their perceptions about the fairness of procedures used to design or administer pay, for example, the fairness of performance appraisals or the availability of mechanisms for appealing pay decisions.

Findings: Fairness and Equity

Research examining distributive and procedural fairness theories in real-world pay contexts is scarce; there are no studies that can directly answer questions about the perceived fairness of different types of pay for performance plans.

The existing research does suggest that employee perceptions of fairness with regard to pay distributions and the design and administration of pay systems does affect their job satisfaction, their trust of management, and their commitment to the organization. The research suggests at least three groups against which employees may assess the fairness of their pay: people in a similar job outside the organization; people in similar jobs inside the organization; and others in the same job or work group.

The research shows that there are different beliefs about how pay increases should be allocated (performance, seniority, equal percentage of base, etc.). Several studies suggest that private-sector managers believe that pay increases should be tied to performance. Surveys of federal managers have shown support of the concept of performance-based pay increases in principle, but there is also a tradition, stemming from the concern to protect the bureaucracy from political manipulation, that equates equity with equal pay for all people in the same grade and step.

Regulating Labor Costs

All organizations have to regulate labor costs. An organization's choice of pay system by definition involves trade-offs among performance, equity, and costs. The various performance-based pay systems studied in this report approach these trade-offs differently. The design of merit pay plans appears to emphasize predictability and stability over time. Pay increases are administered via a merit grid that uses performance rating and position in the pay grade to determine a prespecified percentage increase. The increases are typically modest, but since they are added to base pay, the gradual accumulation over years becomes significant.

Variable pay plans are intended to be more immediately market sensitive. Many of the group incentive plans, for example, are tied to clearly defined measures of organizational productivity or financial performance. Generally, improvements in these performance measures generate the bulk of the pay increase pool. Since the increases are not added to base pay, employee pay is tied closely to the fortunes of the firm. In good times, the payouts are relatively large; in bad times, the employee has more at risk than under a merit system.

Findings: Regulating Labor Costs

Although economic models provide a conceptual basis for understanding the potential trade-offs between cost and performance and some of the contextual factors that might be presumed to favor one pay policy over another, the research on cost regulation and the cost-benefit trade-offs associated with pay for performance plans is sparse and limited to production jobs and manufacturing settings.

We have no evidence that any particular pay for performance plan is superior to another in regulating labor costs.

FINDINGS FROM PRACTICE

Our review of private sector practices revealed that pay for performance is an important part of compensation philosophy and the overwhelming choice of U.S. private-sector firms. Merit plans are almost universally used for managerial and professional employees (95 percent); variable pay plans are much less frequently used (between 16 and 40 percent, depending on the type of plan), but increased competition worldwide appears to be kindling interest in them.

Our interviews with personnel managers of five Fortune 100 companies indicated that merit plans are viewed primarily as a means of guiding managers' decisions about pay increases in a way that is consistent with a meritocratic personnel philosophy—that is, it ensures that pay increases are, at least in part, tied to individual contributions, and that the increases are consistently distributed to employees in a way that is fair and predictable.

This strong attachment to a meritocratic ethos explains the predominance of merit pay plans in the private sector. Merit plans are the only pay for performance plans currently used that base pay increase decisions on the combination of individual contributions (skills, experience, and performance) that are the foundation of a meritocratic philosophy.

The personnel managers interviewed noted that a major benefit of performance appraisal and merit pay was the identification of top and bottom performers. They emphasized the flexibility of private-sector managers to bring top performers into a job at any position in the pay range, and the comparative ease of dismissing those who cannot meet company performance standards.

Surveys indicate that organizations do not evaluate the effect of merit plans on performance, but rather focus on employee perceptions of plan fairness and workability and of the link between pay and performance.

The personnel managers interviewed also emphasized the importance of communicating merit pay increases as part of an overall pay system and a meritocratic personnel philosophy. For example, most of these managers emphasized the competitiveness of base pay and benefits and the general excellence

of the company and work force in their pay communications to employees. Notable, also, is that most of these managers said that their organizations did not share specific pay information—such as average annual increase percentages, market competitors and wage survey methods, the organization spectrum of pay ranges—with employees. This is in contrast to the federal meritocracy in which employees appear to have information about their pay from many different (and conflicting) sources.

In contrast to the nearly universal presence of merit pay plans, our survey reviews revealed that less than 40 percent of private-sector firms have bonus plans for middle managers; less than 20 percent have gainsharing or profit-sharing plans in place. Baseline data for the frequency and distribution of specific plans is difficult to obtain, but there appears to be some increase in interest in these plans and in their application to groups of employees not traditionally covered.

There are a limited number of surveys on the use of group incentive plans. They report that most organizations adopt these plans to improve productivity and financial outcomes and, more generally, to ''revitalize the organization consistent with business strategy." These same surveys report that organizations that have adopted these plans believe that they have achieved the desired effects, but also acknowledge the importance of contextual factors such as employee involvement, information sharing, and ongoing marketing and communication to the employees covered. One survey acknowledged that design and implementation costs were high. None of these surveys reported employee perceptions about the equity or efficacy of variable pay plans.

PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY SYSTEMS: OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, the evidence from research and practice suggests the following findings and conclusions about the effects on individual and organizational performance of pay for performance plans.

Findings: Individual Performance

The evidence on the effects of pay for performance, pieced together from research, theory, clinical studies, and surveys of practice, suggests that, in certain circumstances, variable pay plans produce positive effects on individual job performance.

There is insufficient research to determine conclusively whether merit pay can enhance individual performance or to allow us to make comparative statements about merit and variable pay plans.

Conclusion: Individual Performance

We nevertheless infer that merit pay can have positive effects on individual job performance, on the basis of analogy from the research and theory on variable pay plans. These effects might be attenuated by the facts that, in many merit plans, increases are not always clearly linked to employee performance, agreement on the evaluation of performance does not always exist, and increases are not always viewed as meaningful. However, we believe the direction of effects is nonetheless toward enhanced performance.

Finding: Organizational Performance

There is some evidence from the private sector suggesting that gainsharing plans are associated with improved organizational performance. However, it is not possible from existing research to conclude that these plans cause performance changes, to specify how they do so, or to understand how the behavior of individuals under these plans aggregates to the organization level.

III: THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

Our reviews of performance appraisal and merit pay research and practice indicate that their success or failure will be substantially influenced by the broader features of the context in which they are embedded. Research on performance appraisal has recently turned to organizational factors that might support or hinder the appraisal system from functioning as intended. Research on pay plans stresses the context of the organization's personnel system, technological systems, and strategic goals.

Overall Findings

There is a broad consensus among practitioners—as well as some research evidence—that personnel systems in general and performance appraisal and pay systems in particular must exhibit "fit" or congruence to be effective.

Three categories of contextual factors of particular relevance to performance appraisal and pay for performance emerged from our reviews of research and practice: (a) the nature of the organization's work, or what might be called technological fit ; (b) the broad features of the organization's structure and culture; and (c) external factors such as economic climate, the presence of unions, and legal or political forces exerted by external constituents.

Technological Fit

The strongest evidence on congruence has to do with the fit between appraisal and pay systems and the nature of work. The literature on the

links between pay and individual motivation, for example, demonstrates the importance of job independence, concrete and easily measured products, and production standards that are perceived as fair (doable) to effective individual incentive pay plans. Only a limited number of jobs, mainly in some executive, sales, and manufacturing work, have proved to be amenable to this sort of performance measurement and incentive pay. Conversely, it has been shown that using highly specific individual performance appraisals and incentives with jobs that are complex, interdependent, and have multiple and amorphous goals can result in employees' ignoring important aspects of their jobs or distorting performance in order to meet the appraisal goals. This sort of gaming is a particular danger with objectives-based appraisal systems. Group incentives avoid some of the problem. They recognize the interdependent nature of work and focus on organization-level performance. However, they suffer from unclear links between individual actions and organization-level results.

Organizational Structure and Culture

Although there is little systematic evidence to suggest precisely what the congruence of pay system and organizational culture looks like, there is a growing body of case studies that look at organizational structure and culture, particularly studies of high-commitment organizations and of organizational innovation. The business policy literature, for example, describes two archetypal strategic postures—the dynamic firm and the steady-state firm—and the performance appraisal and pay systems that appear to go along with each. Firms pursuing innovation and growth tend to offer their employees a higher proportion of their pay in the form of incentives than do firms in steady state. The more entrepreneurial firms tend to evaluate their managers and professionals on quantitative, organization-level performance goals and to offer high payouts if strategic goals are met. Studies of organizational structure confirm this pattern. They describe the entrepreneurial firm as emphasizing general skill, higher investment in recruiting than training, and performance measures tied to market outcomes. Retention is not a primary management goal.

Firms pursuing a maintenance strategy tend to evaluate managers on more qualitative, individual behaviors. Their personnel practices emphasize internal skill development, the importance of work force norms, and the employee's long-term contribution. Such firms would seem to be well served by traditional performance appraisal and merit pay plans.

There are also theoretical literatures that suggest that organizations in highly institutionalized sectors or that rely greatly on public trust may be more likely to adopt very formal, precise performance appraisal systems. In such organizations, personnel and pay systems can have an important legitimizing function.

There is a considerable literature that supports these general patterns of

association between performance appraisal and pay systems on the one hand and organizational strategy and structure on the other. However, all of this work is theoretical or descriptive and should be viewed as suggestive, but not necessarily generalizable.

External Forces

The final dimension of congruence has to do with external factors that constrain an organization's choice of evaluation and pay systems. One of the most relevant to federal policy makers is the widespread resistance of unions in the private sector to performance appraisal and pay for performance systems. Most surveys show that unionized employees are far less likely than nonunionized employees to be covered by incentive systems (including merit plans). To the extent that this changed in the 1980s, the incentive pay arrangements accepted by unions (e.g., profit-sharing) were not ones that differentiate among individual employees.

Also of particular salience to the issue of pay for performance is the role of external laws and regulations. Fair labor standards, occupational health and safety, and equal employment opportunity are a few of the areas of law that prescribe internal structures, policies, and procedures that may be more or less compatible with an organization's chosen evaluation and pay systems. Federal equal employment opportunity policy has had an enormous impact on personnel management in every organization of any size in the nation.

In addition to these requirements, the federal government as an employer faces a set of constraints imposed by the laws and regulations surrounding its merit system. The desire to shield civil servants from the exigencies of politics has placed serious constraints on the managerial flexibility needed to make pay for performance work.

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL POLICY

Since its formal adoption by the federal government, performance appraisal for merit pay has been a matter of continuing controversy and periodic amendment. One view of this experience is an explicit criticism of the federal government and its inability to "get right" what is now widely used in the private sector with (at least) less criticism. While there are many features of the merit pay system that could be improved, we do not attribute these failings to mismanagement or stupidity in implementation. Instead, we would emphasize the constraints, many of which derive from features unique to the federal sector.

The federal government faces special, if not entirely intractable, problems that work against any easy transferability of private-sector experience. The very term merit pay carries far more meaning in the context of a public civil service than in the private sector—above all, the absence of partisan political considerations in the determination of pay levels of career employees. Where

private-sector practice relatively easily accepts manager-employee exchanges about performance objectives, both individual and organizational, such a practice in the public sector could be perceived as opening the civil service to partisan manipulation.

Hence, one of the most difficult questions facing federal policy makers is whether and how the experience of private-sector organizations with performance appraisal and pay for performance plans is applicable to civil service organizations. The portrait of high-commitment organizations that emerges from case studies highlights some fundamental differences between private firms in which performance-based pay seems to work well and the typical government agency. In high-commitment organizations, the following conditions appear to obtain:

Pay for performance would be one part of a total management system, which provides full financial and organizational support for effective administration of the plan;

The organization would be characterized by an emphasis on managerial discretion and flexibility and by the recognition that individual managerial authority is critical to effective performance appraisal;

The climate would be characterized by shared values and high levels of trust throughout the organization;

On the basis of those values, the ability to link individual performance and activities to organizational goals and objectives would be strong;

There would be widespread agreement about individual and organizational standards of success; and

There would be low turnover at the managerial levels.

Most of these conditions pose a problem for public-sector organizations because of the division of leadership between the political and career employees; the lack of managerial control over personnel and resource systems; the ambiguity of goals and performance criteria; and multiple authority centers for employee accountability. The very publicness of government creates organizations that are at once more open to external influences and less able to respond to them. These conditions have led to a working environment in which managers are frustrated in their ability to make personnel decisions and employees are distrustful of the performance appraisal and pay allocation systems—most do not see a link between their performance and their pay.

The issue of divided leadership provides a particularly salient example of the inherent difficulties of creating a successful merit pay system in the federal context. A continuing theme in modern government has been the need to make the bureaucracy more responsive to the chief executive. One tool available to presidents is appointing employees to positions outside the career civil service. But if the presence of political executives in leadership positions in federal agencies institutionalizes the continuing mandate for change, the authority and

communication structures within those agencies often create obstacles to change (Ingraham, 1987). For example, the "dual executive" characteristic of many public agencies tends to create a system in which decisions are made according to short-term policy goals at the upper levels of the organization and according to longer-term program goals elsewhere.

In many ways federal agencies function as two loosely coupled organizations with authority, control, and communication between them much more tenuous than prescribed by the classic paradigm. Even if the policy goals were not so often diffuse, unclear, and contradictory (Heclo, 1978; Ingraham, 1987), the ability to communicate them to the career bureaucracy is attenuated by the lack of experience and short tenure of many political executives (Heclo, 1978). All too often, in the judgment of experts in federal management, organization-wide goals are either not articulated or are not communicated down through the organization to the career employees responsible for their implementation. Functioning with two sets of managers makes congruence and coherence hard to achieve. In most models of organizational fit, there is a single leadership that creates a coherent culture and shared values that are necessary conditions to enable a successful performance appraisal system.

The issue of organizational boundary (at which the controlling influences shift from internal to external actors), particularly as it relates to the ability to control or direct organizational resources, is also a central concern. Many have observed that public organizations are notable for the porosity of their boundary (Waldo, 1971; Kaufman, 1978; Gawthrop, 1984). The federal government has been structured deliberately to disburse authority among competing institutions (Allison, 1983); members of Congress, administration officials, interest groups, concerned citizens, and others can, and do, influence bureaucratic actors. This further obfuscates goals and objectives within the organization. Of equal significance is the fact that many of these external influences, but most notably the Congress, have a controlling influence on the resources available to the organization, thus further complicating the authority issue.

Other institutional influences that profoundly shape federal agencies and their activities include civil service laws and regulations that impose great complexity and rigidity on the system. Recruiting, testing, hiring, firing and rewarding are all constrained in the federal government (National Academy of Public Administration, 1983). As a result of these externally imposed constraints, managerial discretion has traditionally been limited and has, in fact, been discouraged by the provisions of the merit system (Ingraham and Rosen-bloom 1990). Although there is emerging evidence that some federal managers do use whatever flexibilities that are available, including those provided by existing performance appraisal systems, there is also strong evidence that procedural constraints deter all but the strongest of heart (unpublished document, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1990).

A frequently cited example of the boundary problem is demonstrated by

the fact that Congress retained statutory control over development of the federal government's performance appraisal system, rather than delegating both the development and implementation components to the Office of Personnel Management. The rationale was to balance managerial discretion with employee rights in the context of a system that made it easier for agencies to fire incompetent employees; the result was to hobble the decision making of managers. On one hand, Civil Service Reform Act legislation provided the requirement for detailed performance appraisal standards that could be used by managers as proof of unsatisfactory performance. On the other hand, the managers' ability to act regarding unsatisfactory performance was limited in the statute by providing employees with strong substantive rights, such as the opportunity to improve before an unacceptable performance action can be taken and the ability to appeal performance appraisal ratings both within the agency and externally to the Merit Systems Protection Board. This has led to situations in which, at best, a number of years are required to release an inadequate employee, and the costs borne by managers serve as a strong disincentive against appraising mediocre performance accurately.

Another feature of the federal context that warrants consideration is whether the dominant motivations among employees are comparable to those of private-sector workers who work where pay for performance has been implemented. Although there has been a long tradition of simply applying private-sector motivation theory and techniques to the public sector, some recent studies are finding different sources for motivation and different motivational patterns among public employees. Perry and Wise (1990) explore the role of public service as a motivator; Rainey (1990) documents a fairly consistent pattern of differences in public and private managers in relation to money, job satisfaction and security, and organizational commitment. In a 1982 review article, Perry and Porter noted that public-sector employees had higher achievement needs and tend to value economic wealth less than do entrants into the private sector.

Furthermore, there is some evidence that public managers, particularly those at the highest levels of the organization, are keenly attuned to public perceptions of their effectiveness and the overall usefulness of the policies and programs they administer (Ingraham and Barrilleaux, 1983). Federal Employee Attitude Surveys in 1979 and 1980 demonstrated that upper-level managers perceived generalized "bureaucrat bashing" as a personalized attack. More recent studies by the Merit Systems Protection Board (1989) and the U.S. General Accounting Office (1987) indicate that managers continue to tie their overall job satisfaction to their perceptions of "appreciation" by the public. These findings suggest that policy makers would do well to give their attention to nonmonetary motivators in concert with their plan to strengthen the ties of pay to performance.

Finally, one of the most important contextual factors that governs how any new performance appraisal or pay for performance system is likely to function

is the less than satisfactory experience of federal employees with the merit pay systems implemented during the last 12 years.

CONCLUSIONS

We have conducted a wide-ranging study of performance appraisal and pay for performance in the private sector to help the director of the Office of Personnel Management and other federal policy makers as they rethink the Personnel Management and Recognition System. What we have learned does not provide a blueprint for linking pay to performance in the federal sector or even any specific remedy for what ails PMRS. Instead, we conclude with some general suggestions about priorities.

Performance appraisal ratings can influence many personnel decisions, and thus care in the development and use of performance appraisal systems is warranted. There is, however, no obvious technical (psychometric) solution to the performance management issues facing the federal government. Further refinements in the technology of performance appraisal (e.g., extensive new job analysis, modifications of existing rating scales or rater training programs) are unlikely to provide substantially more valid and accurate appraisals than those currently in force, particularly for managerial and professional jobs. There is also no evidence that one particular appraisal format is clearly superior to all others. For example, we do not know that the objective-based format for managerial appraisal, so popular in the private sector, yields more (or less) valid appraisals than the supervisory ratings used in the government.

There appears to be at least as much effort expended on performance appraisal in the federal government as elsewhere. More generally, the pursuit of further psychometric sophistication in the performance appraisal system used in the federal government is unlikely to contribute to enhanced individual or organizational performance.

Where performance appraisal is viewed as most successful in the private sector, it is firmly embedded in the context of management and personnel systems that provide incentives for managers to use performance appraisal ratings as the organization intends. These incentives include managerial flexibility or discretion in rewarding top performers and in dismissing those who continually perform below standards. When performance appraisal ratings are used to distribute pay (as in a merit plan) the size of the merit pay offered allows managers to differentiate outstanding performers from good and poor performers, and thus provides them with incentives to differentiate. For example, top performers may receive 10 percent of their base salary in merit pay, good performers, 5 percent, and poor performers, no merit increase. Finally, managers are themselves assessed on the results of their performance appraisal activities.

We have been struck by the apparent contrast between incentives for private and federal managers to use performance appraisal and merit plans effectively. Whatever incentives there are for federal managers seem currently dwarfed by the disincentives.

In order to motivate employees and provide them incentives to perform, a merit plan or any pay for performance plan must theoretically (a) define and communicate performance goals that employees understand and view as doable; (b) consistently link pay and performance; and (c) provide payouts that employees see as meaningful. These conditions seem straightforward, and the notion of pay for performance thus becomes deceptively simple. Our reviews of research and practice indicate, however, that selecting the best pay for performance plan and implementing it in an organizational context so that these conditions are met is currently as much an art as a science. We cannot generalize about which pay for performance plans work best—especially for the federal government, with its considerable organizational and work force diversity.

We can suggest that, given this diversity and the importance of matching pay for performance plans to organization context, federal policy makers consider:

Decentralizing the design and implementation of many personnel programs, including appraisal and merit pay programs, within the framework of central policy guidelines and to the extent possible given the government's legitimate concerns about facilitating interagency mobility, standardization and comparability, and equity.

Supporting careful, controlled pilot studies of a variety of pay for performance systems in a variety of agencies. These studies would serve to identify important design, implementation, and evaluation issues for users, policy makers, and the research community, along with incentives to investigate these issues. They could take a variety of forms, but to be useful must provide careful measures of preand postintervention conditions.

Ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all employees is an important objective of any personnel system. Yet the heavily legalistic environment surrounding the federal civil service has led to dependence on formal procedures and an elaboration of protections, requirements, and procedures that ultimately provide powerful disincentives for managers to use personnel systems as the organization intends. Although these protections are meant to ensure employee equity, it is not clear that their proliferation provides federal employees with a greater sense of equity than seen in many private-sector organizations. Effective reform of personnel management and pay systems in the federal government may well need to be part of a more fundamental rethinking of past notions of political neutrality, merit, and their protection in the civil service.

Our entire review has stressed the importance of viewing performance appraisal and merit pay as embedded in broader pay, personnel, management, and organizational contexts. For example, while by no means the only relevant

contextual factor, the issue of comparability of federal base salaries with pay for equivalent private-sector jobs may pose severe problems for the acceptance of merit pay or any other pay for performance system if the promise of recently enacted legislation proves illusory. We realize that the broader changes suggested by an analysis of context can be costly, but we suggest that making programmatic changes to the Performance Management and Recognition System in isolation is unlikely to enhance employee acceptance of the system or improve individual and organizational effectiveness significantly and, in the long run, may prove no less costly.

"Pay for performance" has become a buzzword for the 1990s, as U.S. organizations seek ways to boost employee productivity. The new emphasis on performance appraisal and merit pay calls for a thorough examination of their effectiveness. Pay for Performance is the best resource to date on the issues of whether these concepts work and how they can be applied most effectively in the workplace.

This important book looks at performance appraisal and pay practices in the private sector and describes whether—and how—private industry experience is relevant to federal pay reform. It focuses on the needs of the federal government, exploring how the federal pay system evolved; available evidence on federal employee attitudes toward their work, their pay, and their reputation with the public; and the complicating and pervasive factor of politics.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Performance Appraisal Reactions: A Review and Research Agenda

Cite this chapter.

• Shaun Pichler 3  

2507 Accesses

8 Citations

Employee reactions to performance appraisals are essential to appraisal effectiveness: They are correlated with subsequent job attitudes, motivation, and performance. Yet, many managers dread giving appraisal reviews and employee reactions are often negative. Although performance appraisal research has traditionally focused on psychometric properties of performance ratings, there is a burgeoning literature on appraisal reactions. In this chapter, this burgeoning literature is reviewed to identify key predictors of appraisal reactions, opportunities for future research, as well as implications for managers and organizations. A conceptual model is developed to guide future research; this model implies that more longitudinal and multilevel studies are needed to better understand the processes whereby predictors are related to appraisal reactions. This review suggests that managers and organizations should pay special attention to leader–member exchange quality, due process performance appraisal, and providing opportunities for voice in the appraisal review so as to improve performance appraisal effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Employee reactions to performance appraisals will be referred to as appraisal reactions throughout the rest of the document for purposes of clarity and parsimony.

Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar  

Anseel, F., Van Yperen, N. W., Janssen, O., & Duyck, W. (2011). Feedback type as a moderator of the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84 (4), 703–722.

Balzer, W. K., & Sulsky, L. M. (1990). Performance appraisal effectiveness. In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 133–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bassett, G. A., & Meyer, H. H. (1968). Performance appraisal based on self-review. Personnel Psychology, 21 , 421–430.

Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work . Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Co.

Bonness, B., & Macan, T. (2006). Reactions to the performance appraisal process: Effects of self-appraisals . Paper presented at the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology conference.

Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (4), 410.

Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 930.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W., & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31 , 903–919.

Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives . Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior . New York: Springer.

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (4), 615–633.

Cobb, A. T., Vest, M., & Hills, F. (1997). Who delivers justice? Source perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27 (12), 1021–1040.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal ofAapplied Psychology, 86 (3), 386.

DeGregorio, M., & Fisher, C. D. (1988). Providing performance feedback: Reactions to alternate methods. Journal of Management, 14 (4), 605–616.

Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluation’s fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (3), 288–303.

Elicker, J. D. (2000). An organizational justice explanation of feedback reactions in different leader-member exchange relationships . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Akron.

Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12 , 555–578.

Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). Procedural justice as a two-dimensional construct: An examination in the performance appraisal context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37 , 205–222.

Evans, E. M., & McShane, S. L. (1988). Employee perceptions of performance appraisal fairness in two organizations. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 20 (2), 177–191.

Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Relationship clean-up time: Using meta analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34 , 161–188.

Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58 (1), 101–135.

Folger, R., Konovsky, M., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process model of performance appraisal. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 129–177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (1), 115–130.

Giles, W. F., Findley, H. M., & Field, H. S. (1997). Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: Beyond the review session. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11 (4), 493–506.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (2), 340.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12 , 9–22.

Greller, M. M. (1975). Subordinate participation and reactions to the appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (5), 544–549.

Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980’s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54 , 321–368.

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 , 349–371.

Inderrieden, E. J., Allen, R. E., & Keavey, T. J. (2004). Managerial discretion in the use of self-ratings in an appraisal system: The antecedents and consequences. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16 (4), 460–482.

Inderrieden, E. J., Keaveny, T. J., & Allen, R. E. (1988). Predictors of employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2 (4), 306–310.

Jawahar, I. M. (2010). The mediating role of appraisal feedback reactions on the relationship between rater feedback-related behaviors and ratee performance. Group & Organization Management, 35 (4), 494–526.

Kavanagh, P., Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2007). Understanding performance appraisal fairness. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45 (2), 132–150.

Kay, E., Meyer, H. H., & French, R. P. (1965). Effects of threat in a performance appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49 , 311–317.

Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (5), 708–723.

Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G. E., Wu, B., & Mckee-Ryan, F. M. (2004). A covariance structure analysis of employee’s response to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6), 1057–1069.

Kleiman, L. S., Biderman, M. D., & Faley, R. H. (1987). An examination of employee perceptions of a subjective performance appraisal system. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2 (2), 112–121.

Klein, H. J., & Snell, S. (1994). The impact of interview process and context on performance appraisal interview effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6 (2), 160–175.

Klein, H. J., Snell, S. A., & Wexley, K. N. (1987). Systems model of the performance appraisal interview process. Industrial Relations, 26 (3), 267–280.

Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21 (4), 657–669.

Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on manager's interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (5), 731.

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64 (2), 289–313.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (6), 751–754.

Levy, P. E., Cavanaugh, C. M., Frantz, N. B., & Borden, L. A. (2015). The role of due process in performance appraisal: A 20-year retrospective. In The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace , NY: Oxford University Press, 605–620.

Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (1998). The role of perceived system knowledge in predicting appraisal reactions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19 , 53–65.

Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal. Journal of Management, 30 (6), 881–905.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15 , 47–120.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice . New York: Plenum.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lombardi, M. (2011). The engagement/performance equation . Aberdeen Group. Retrieved from: http://hosteddocs.ittoolbox.com/the-engagement-performance-equation.pdf

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43 , 738–748.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709–734.

Meinecke, A. L., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). What happens during annual appraisal interviews? How leader–follower interactions unfold and impact interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 , 1054–1074.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nathan, B. R., Mohrman, A. M., & Milliman, J. (1991). Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (2), 352–369.

Nemeroff, W. F., & Wexley, K. N. (1979). An exploration of the relationships between performance feedback interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers and subordinates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52 , 25–34.

Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management, 51 (5), 709–732.

Pichler, S., Beenen, G., & Wood, S. (2018). Feedback frequency and appraisal reactions: a meta-analytic test of moderators. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1443961

Pichler, S., Varma, A., Michel, J. S., Levy, P. E., & Budwar, P. S. (2016). Leader-member exchange, group and individual-level procedural justice reactions to performance appraisals. Human Resource Management, 55 (5), 871–883.

Pichler, S., Varma, A., & Petty, R. (2008). Rater–ratee relationships and performance management. In A. Varma, P. Budhwar, & A. DeNisi (Eds.), Performance management systems: A global perspective . (pp. 55–66). London: Routledge.

Russell, J. S., & Goode, D. L. (1988). An analysis of manager’s reactions to their own performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (1), 63–67.

Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56 , 571–600.

Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64 (1), 165–184.

Suh, Y. (1992). Instrumental and noninstrumental voice effects on perceptions of procedural justice in a performance appraisal . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Nebraska – Lincoln.

Taylor, M. S., Masterson, S. S., Renard, M. K., & Tracy, K. (1998). Manager’s reactions to procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (5), 568–579.

Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 , 495–523.

Tharenou, P. (1995). The impact of a developmental performance appraisal program on employee perception in an Australian federal agency. Group & Organization Management, 20 , 245–271.

Tziner, A., & Kopelman, R. E. (2002). Is there a preferred performance rating format? A non-psychometric perspective. Applied Psychology, 51 (3), 479–503.

Tziner, A., Kopelman, R. E., & Joanis, C. (1997). Investigation of raters’ and ratees’ reactions to three methods of performance appraisal: BOS, BARS, and GRS. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14 (4), 396–404.

Tziner, A., Kopelman, R. E., & Livneh, N. (1993). Effects of performance appraisal format on perceived goal characteristics, appraisal process satisfaction, and changes in rated job performance: A field experiment. The Journal of Psychology, 127 (3), 281–291.

Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2005). Contextual and rater factors affecting rating behavior. Group and Organization Behavior, 30 (1), 89–98.

Varma, A., Pichler, S., & Srinivas, E. S. (2005). The role of interpersonal affect in performance appraisal: Evidence from two samples–the US and India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (11), 2029–2044.

Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (1992). The effects of perceived system knowledge on the agreement between self-ratings and supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 45 (4), 835–847.

Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Investigating some neglected criteria: The influence of organizational level and perceived system knowledge on appraisal reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14 (3), 501–513.

Zander, A., & Gyr, J. (1955). Changing attitudes toward a merit rating system. Personnel Psychology, 8 (1955), 429.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, Mihaylo College of Business & Economics, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA

Shaun Pichler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaun Pichler .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA

Lisa A. Steelman

Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Jane R. Williams

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Pichler, S. (2019). Performance Appraisal Reactions: A Review and Research Agenda. In: Steelman, L.A., Williams, J.R. (eds) Feedback at Work. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30915-2_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30915-2_5

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-30914-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-30915-2

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The effect of strengths-based performance appraisal on perceived supervisor support and the motivation to improve performance.

• 1 Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands
• 2 Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Strengths-based performance appraisal focuses on identifying, appreciating, and developing employee’s qualities in line with the company goals. Based on self-determination theory (SDT), we hypothesized that strengths-based performance appraisals will bring about a stronger motivation to improve (MTI) performance, by making subordinates feel supported by their supervisor and thereby fulfill their need for relatedness. Moreover, we hypothesized that strengths-based performance appraisal will reduce the threat to the relationship between supervisor and subordinate when the performance rating is relatively low. To investigate our hypotheses, we distributed a questionnaire to employees working for a large Dutch consultancy firm right after their yearly appraisal ( N = 422) and linked the questionnaire data to their official performance ratings. Conditional process analysis indicated that strengths-based performance appraisal had a positive effect on perceived supervisor support (PSS), and in turn on MTI performance. Furthermore, the effect of strengths-based performance appraisal was particularly strong, when the performance rating was relatively low. Our findings may inspire future research into strengths-based performance appraisal as a relational approach to employee development.

Introduction

One of the main goals of performance appraisal is to motivate employees toward higher levels of performance ( Kuvaas, 2007 ). However, for many workers, performance appraisal is not a source of motivation ( Adler et al., 2016 ; Murphy, 2019 ). Some even argue that performance appraisal may undermine the relationship between the supervisor and the employee ( Culbert, 2010 ; Kluger and Nir, 2010 ) and may have a negative impact on employee motivation ( Neville and Roulin, 2016 ). Traditional performance appraisal tends to focus on employees’ deficiencies in their job performance, knowledge, and skills, and how to remediate these deficiencies ( Aguinis et al., 2012 ). As an alternative, strengths-based performance appraisal focuses on identifying, appreciating, and promoting the future use and development of employee strengths ( Aguinis et al., 2012 ) and can therefore be seen as a powerful positive organizational intervention.

Based on self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2008 ), we propose that strengths-based performance appraisals will make subordinates feel supported by their supervisor and thereby fulfill their psychological need for relatedness. In turn, the satisfaction of their need for relatedness will bring about a stronger motivation to learn and improve. SDT research often examines need-satisfaction constructs as mediators that connect particular social contexts to the outcomes that result from those contexts ( Sheldon et al., 2011 ). A strengths-based performance appraisal may serve as a social context in which an authority (the supervisor) supports the need satisfaction of a subordinate. Although SDT posits three basic psychological needs, i.e., the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, in this study, we focused in particular on the need for relatedness, given the strongly interpersonal nature of the performance appraisal ( Reinke, 2003 ). Strengths-based performance appraisals foster the need for relatedness by encouraging subordinates to express their authentic self ( Roberts et al., 2005 ; Cable et al., 2013 ), thereby making them more identified and socially integrated ( Swann et al., 2000 ; Polzer et al., 2002 ; Cable et al., 2015 ). This increases the chance that their supervisor will see them as they see themselves, leading to positive relationships and higher levels of perceived supervisor support (PSS; Cable et al., 2013 ). In turn, the fulfillment of the need for relatedness in the form of PSS may provide a safe and secure environment that stimulates subordinates toward higher levels of intrinsic motivation, thereby making them more inclined to seek challenges, extend their capacities, explore, and learn ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ).

Even though supervisors may focus on strengths in the performance appraisal, they may still need to comply with the performance management system that has been implemented in the organization. These systems often include performance ratings to compare the performance of employees relative to each other and to a predetermined set of criteria, and to make decisions regarding promotions and salary increases ( Adler et al., 2016 ). Even when the performance management system is perceived as fair, ratings that are relatively low compared to ratings given to other employees may harm the relationship between the subordinate and the supervisor, because most employees consider their work performance to be above average ( Pearce and Porter, 1986 ).

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of strengths-based performance appraisal in the context of traditional performance ratings. We expect the effect of strengths-based performance appraisal on PSS is particularly strong when the relationship between a supervisor and subordinate is threatened by a relatively low performance rating. By emphasizing mastery experiences, supervisors may enhance employees’ self-efficacy regarding improving this rating in the future ( Luthans et al., 2008 ), thereby leading to higher levels of PSS. This may be especially important when the relationship between the supervisor and subordinate is under pressure because the supervisor has given a relatively low performance rating.

This study contributes to the literature in two ways. First, by investigating the impact of strengths-based performance appraisal on employee outcomes, we answer to the call of Asplund and Blacksmith (2012) for research that explores the ways in which specific applications of strength-based interventions boost positive outcomes for employees. Even though the evidence for the effectiveness of strengths-based approaches in organizations is growing ( Ghielen et al., 2018 ; Miglianico et al., 2020 ), there is still limited research into the effectiveness of strengths-based performance appraisals. Whereas, a qualitative case-study by Bouskila-Yam and Kluger (2011) concludes that strengths-based performance appraisals improved the relationship and the communication with the supervisor and increased the level of motivation and performance, these findings have not yet been replicated by quantitative studies. Only one recent study by Budworth et al. (2015) showed that employees who engaged in a feedforward interview with their manager performed significantly better than employees who received the company’s traditional performance appraisal. However, this study does not uncover the mechanisms that were responsible for this improved performance.

Second, this study contributes to SDT by investigating the performance appraisal as a social context that may have implications for the need satisfaction and motivation to improve (MTI) of subordinates, and by exploring the performance rating as a boundary condition. Even though several SDT studies have explored the role of feedback in the satisfaction of basic needs (e.g., Deci, 1971 ; Deci et al., 2017 ), very few studies have focused on the performance appraisal interview as a context which may facilitate or thwart the support of basic psychological needs. This is relevant, especially since most organizations still use competency-, task-, or behavior-based rating scales to rate the performance of employees ( Hall, 2004 ; Adler et al., 2016 ), even though they might also be experimenting with strengths-based performance appraisals. This means that the employee will receive two different signals ( Haggerty and Wright, 2009 ): one signal about how their performance is rated against a fixed set of criteria ( Hall, 2004 ; van Woerkom and de Bruijn, 2016 ), and one signal about who they are at their best. We contribute to SDT by investigating the interplay between these different signals.

Strengths-Based Performance Appraisal

Most performance feedback in organizations is based on a deficit approach in which person’s weaknesses are seen as their greatest opportunity for development ( van Woerkom et al., 2016 ). However, developments in the field of positive psychology ( Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ) have inspired practitioners and scholars to promote the benefits of detecting and using individual strengths as a pathway to performance improvement. Individual strengths refer to trait-like characteristics that are energizing to the user and allow people to perform at their personal best ( Wood et al., 2011 ). If individual strengths are recognized by oneself and by others, they can be refined through practice and by developing related knowledge and skills, so that they can ultimately be productively applied. Recent studies have indicated that it is the use of strengths, no matter what these strengths are, that leads to valuable outcomes, such as job satisfaction, work engagement, well-being, personal growth, and higher levels of work performance (see reviews by Ghielen et al., 2018 ; Miglianico et al., 2020 ).

Even though every person has strengths, many people have trouble identifying their strong points ( Buckingham and Clifton, 2001 ) and tend to pay more attention to their weaknesses than to their strengths ( Rozin and Royzman, 2001 ; Roberts et al., 2005 ). Individual strengths might come so naturally to a person that they are used unconsciously or might be seen as “normal” or something that “everyone does” ( van Woerkom and de Bruijn, 2016 ). Strengths-based performance appraisal helps workers in raising awareness of their own strengths by paying attention to and expressing appreciation for their unique qualities. Research has indicated that particularly feedback from others regarding ones strengths at the times when one is at his or her best is effective in raising strengths awareness ( Cable et al., 2015 ). This may be partly so because this feedback produces strong positive emotions, thereby inducing changes in self-knowledge ( McAdams, 1988 ; Poole et al., 1989 ).

Strengths-based performance appraisal also supports future strengths use by discussing how strengths could be developed even further and how these strengths could be applied more effectively in the work context. A strengths-based performance appraisal does not imply that performance problems performance can no longer be discussed or that supervisors can only be positive ( van Woerkom and de Bruijn, 2016 ). It does however mean that the supervisor makes an effort to discover the unique qualities of employees and to maximize the opportunity for employees to carry out work activities in a manner that plays to their strengths.

The Relationship Between Strengths-Based Performance Appraisals and Motivation to Improve

We expect that a performance appraisal interview that supports employees in detecting, developing, and using the characteristics that allow them to perform at their personal best, will have a positive effect on their MTI their performance. Because employee development has become an important aim of the performance appraisal ( Kuvaas, 2007 ), the MTI one’s performance can be considered as an important performance appraisal reaction, next to satisfaction, fairness, perceived utility, and perceived accuracy ( Keeping and Levy, 2000 ; Jawahar, 2010 ; Pichler, 2012 ; Pichler et al., 2018 ). Unfortunately, the motivational effect of performance appraisal is still an under-researched outcome variable for performance appraisals ( DeNisi and Pritchard, 2006 ; Roberson and Stewart, 2006 ; Selvarajan and Cloninger, 2012 ).

Helping employees to pinpoint their individual strengths and making them tell stories about occurrences where they felt “at their best,” had a positive impact on others, and tapped their full potential, is likely to boost feelings of mastery and competence ( Peterson and Seligman, 2004 ; van Woerkom and Meyers, 2019 ). By discussing aspects of the self that have been successfully developed in the past, employees will feel reassured that future development endeavors will be equally successful ( Thoen and Robitschek, 2013 ) and will help them understand which steps are necessary for future growth processes ( Borowa et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, discussing how employees can make better use of their strengths in the future, for instance by crafting their job in line with their strengths ( Kooij et al., 2017 ) is likely to strengthen feelings of ownership and autonomy ( Peterson and Seligman, 2004 ; Linley et al., 2010 ; Quinlan et al., 2012 ). In turn, based on SDT it can be argued that these feelings of competence and autonomy will lead to intrinsic motivation, making people work on tasks because they find them enjoyable and interesting ( Deci, 1989 ) and making them inclined to seek challenges, extend their capacities, explore, and learn ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). The positive effect of strengths-based approaches on personal growth and professional development has been shown by several studies ( Hiemstra and Van Yperen, 2015 ; Meyers et al., 2015 ; van Woerkom and Meyers, 2019 ). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Strengths-based performance appraisal is positively related to the MTI.

The Mediating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support

Given the strong relational nature of performance appraisals, we propose that the fulfillment of the need for relatedness, referring to the fundamental desire for close ties with others ( Graves and Luciano, 2013 ), functions as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between strengths-based performance appraisals and the MTI. For employees, feeling supported by a supervisor, and being able to share one’s joys and problems facilitates satisfaction of relatedness needs ( Graves and Luciano, 2013 ). According to Asplund and Blacksmith (2012) , the strengths-based approach to management is the best way to enhance PSS. By engaging in a discussion with their supervisor about how their strengths may be leveraged, employees will feel more supported by them in their future development because discussing the situations where they used their strengths will bring about feelings of competence, efficacy, and mastery ( Peterson and Seligman, 2004 ). Encouraging subordinates to express their strengths that are an integral part of their authentic self, also makes them feel more identified and socially integrated ( Swann et al., 2000 ; Polzer et al., 2002 ; Cable et al., 2015 ), leading to positive relationships ( Cable et al., 2013 ). Moreover, highlighting employees’ strengths beyond the immediate job description signals a less transactional relationship thereby strengthening the bond between both parties ( Robinson, 1996 ; Cable et al., 2015 ). When the supervisor and the subordinate know each other well, the positive character of the interview might help to enhance and deepen their relationship, whereas when the supervisor and the subordinate do not know each other well, it offers an opportunity to get to know each other ( Kluger and Nir, 2010 ).

Several studies have shown that interventions that help people to identify their strengths and make better use of them in the future are associated with higher levels of relatedness. Quinlan et al. (2015) found that a strengths intervention in the context of education, in which pupils and teachers were taught how to identify strengths in them and in others, led to a stronger fulfillment of the need for relatedness. In two lab experiments and a field experiment in a consultancy organization, Cable et al. (2015) show that best-self activations, that affirm the strengths of participants lead to more relatedness with their employer. In a field experiment, at a call center Cable et al. (2013) show that when new employees are affirmed in their positive qualities, they are more inclined to stay with their current employer. Lee et al. (2016) show that when team members are stimulated to reflect on their positive traits, they feel more socially accepted by the other team members.

In turn, the fulfillment of the need for relatedness is highly salient for producing variability in intrinsic motivation ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). This can already be observed in infancy, when intrinsic motivation in the form of exploratory behavior is more evident when the infant is securely attached to a parent ( Frodi et al., 1985 ). SDT proposes that a similar dynamic occurs in interpersonal settings over the life span, with intrinsic motivation more likely to flourish in contexts that are characterized by a sense of security and relatedness ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). Satisfaction of the need to be related to others and to be effective in the social world supports people’s tendency to internalize the values and regulatory processes that are ambient in their world ( Gagné and Deci, 2005 ). Therefore, based on SDT it can be expected that perceived supervisory support is a mediating variable in the relationship between strengths-based performance appraisal and the MTI.

The mediating role of PSS in the relationship between strengths-based performance appraisal and the MTI is also supported by literature about communication dynamics during appraisal interviews. By making an effort to spot strengths in a subordinate and to find applications of these strengths in the work context, managers express empathy and the willingness to see the world from the perspective of the subordinate, thereby supporting the process of building rapport ( Meinecke and Kauffeld, 2019 ). Based on the work on client-centered counseling ( Rogers, 1975 ), it can be argued that expressed empathy is one of the most important factors in bringing about change and learning. By empathetic communication, leaders inquire more deeply into the views and needs of their subordinate, and thereby develop a better understanding of topics that need more attention during the appraisal interview.

Based on the reasoning above, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between strengths-based performance appraisal and MTI is mediated by PSS.

The Performance Rating as a Moderator

Even though many organizations are inspired by positive psychology approaches and are currently in the process of revising their performance management systems, most companies continue to use competency-, task-, or behavior-based rating scales to rate the performance of employees against a fixed set of criteria ( Hall, 2004 ; Adler et al., 2016 ). These ratings have been severely criticized. Research indicates that employees have an aversion to receiving performance appraisal feedback ( Cleveland et al., 2007 ) and the appraisal feedback they receive is often unreliable ( Murphy et al., 2001 ). Moreover, due to a fundamental attribution error ( Ross, 1977 ), people tend to attribute their own successes to internal factors and their own failures to external factors, but to make the opposite attributions when others succeed or fail. This attribution error causes peoples’ self-ratings of performance to be consistently higher than the ratings that they get from their supervisors ( Heneman, 1974 ; Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988 ). Especially when performance ratings that are given by the supervisor are relatively low, employees may dismiss this feedback as inaccurate, harsh, and unfair ( Adler et al., 2016 ), thereby harming the relationship with their supervisor. Performance ratings provide comparative information regarding the ranking of the employee in relation other employees. Since people generally think that they are above average ( Meyer, 1980 ), and want to be perceived as a good employee, even average performance ratings may be perceived as low performance ratings compared to “good” ratings, and may therefore threaten self-identity ( Greenberg et al., 2007 ).

When the performance rating is relatively high, this rating by itself already gives a powerful signal to the employee that he or she is valued and appreciated. However when the rating is relatively low, this might challenge ones positive self-view, leading to self-protective psychological processes such as withdrawing from the relationship with the rater by disqualifying the relationship with this person ( Green et al., 2017 ). We expect that especially under this condition, a strengths-based performance appraisal will be important to safeguard the perception of being supported by the supervisor. A discussion on employees’ talents and strengths is based on a within-person analysis regarding the situations when this person is at his or her best, rather than on a normative approach of looking across people to see who is the best among groups ( Roberts et al., 2005 ). This enables supervisors to empower employees in coping with the setback of a disappointing performance rating and successfully address and manage their negative emotions. This is supported by a study by Kluger and Nir (2010) , who found that a focus on strengths prior to a traditional PA, reduced employee defensiveness to the review and to 360-degree feedback. Based on the reasoning above we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3: The indirect positive effect of a strengths-based performance appraisal on MTI via PSS is stronger for employees who received a relatively low performance rating.

Figure 1 visualizes our conceptual model.

Figure 1 . Conceptual model.

Materials and Methods

Procedure and sample.

This study was conducted among consultants of a strategic business unit of a Dutch IT consultancy firm. After the study was approved by the works council, the HR director of the strategic business unit sent an e-mail to all consultants to inform them about the purpose of the study. The same day, the researchers sent an e-mail to the employees with a link to the questionnaire and an accompanying introduction letter. In the introduction letter, the objectives of the study were briefly outlined, and it was stressed that participation was completely voluntary, and the anonymity of the participants was guaranteed. Furthermore, employees were asked to fill out the questionnaire as soon as possible after their yearly performance appraisal. The data that we collected for this study are unique and have not been used in another paper.

In total, 422 of the 1,675 consultants responded (response rate of 25.2%). The sample included 355 men (84.1%) and 67 women (15.9%). The average age was 42.7 years old ( SD = 12.13). Most of the respondents had either a master’s (43.8%) or a bachelor’s degree (47.9%). On average, respondents had an organizational tenure of 11.11 years ( SD = 9.62). In total, 422 of the 1,675 employees filled out the questionnaire. A comparison of the performance ratings between respondents and non-respondents revealed that the performance ratings of respondents ( M = 3.34, SD = 0.746) were significantly higher than the ratings of the non-respondents [( M = 3.18, SD = 0.73); t (711.918) = 3.3834, p = 0.000].

Strengths-based performance appraisal was measured with four items that were based on a scale to measure strength-based psychological climate as developed by van Woerkom and Meyers (2015) . The following items were used: (In the performance appraisal interview…) “appreciation was expressed for my unique qualities,” “attention was paid to discovering my unique qualities in relation to my work,” “attention was paid to how I can further my talents,” “attention was paid to how I can make better use of my strengths in my work.” Responses were made on a five-point scale (1 = to a small extent to 5 = to a large extent). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.84.

Performance ratings were obtained from the organizational records. The performance score was rated on a five-point scale ranging from: 1 = far below expectations, 2 = below expectations, 3 = meets expectations, 4 = above/exceeding expectations, and 5 = far above (greatly exceeding) expectations. The performance ratings were matched with the survey data based on e-mail address. As soon as this match was made, the e-mail addresses were removed from the data-set.

PSS was measured with four items from a scale developed by Rhoades et al. (2001) . “My supervisor cares about my opinions,” “My supervisor cares about my well-being,” “My supervisor strongly considers my goals and values,” “My supervisor shows very little concern for me.” The scale had a seven point response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) analyses showed that a two-factor model with strengths-based performance appraisal and PSS loading on two separate factors ( χ 2 = 63.200, df = 19; CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.07) fits significantly better to the data than a one-factor model with strengths-based performance appraisal and PSS loading on one (Δ χ 2 = 371.207, df = 1, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.81, TLI = 0.73, RMSEA = 0.22).

MTI performance. The employee’s MTI his/her performance was measured with a scale by Roberson and Stewart (2006) . To match the purpose of our study, we slightly adapted this scale by replacing the word feedback by the term performance appraisal. The following items were used: (The performance appraisal interview…) “made me want to do better,” “encouraged me to improve my performance,” “increased my commitment to do well.” Since the scale consisted of only three items we added the following item: “The performance appraisal inspired me to develop myself more in my work.” The items were rated on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94.

CFA analyses also indicated that a three-factor model with strengths-based performance appraisal, PSS, and MTI loading on three separate factors ( χ 2 = 119.779, df = 51; CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.06) fitted significantly better to the data than a one-factor model with all three constructs loading on one factor (Δ χ 2 = 1375.445, df = 3, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.63, TLI = 0.55, RMSEA = 0.25) and a two-factor model with supervisory support as a separate factor (Δ χ 2 = 470.576, df = 2, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.86, TLI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.16), MTI as a separate factor (Δ χ 2 = 417.367, df = 2, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.15) or strengths-based performance appraisal as a separate factor (Δ χ 2 = 1009.409, df = 2, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.72, TLI = 0.66, RMSEA = 0.22).

To assess the relation between strengths-based performance appraisal and MTI (Hypothesis 1), mediated by PSS (Hypothesis 2), we utilized bootstrapping (Model 4) within PROCESS ( Hayes, 2013 ). Furthermore, to test the potential moderation effect of the performance rating in the indirect relationship between strengths-based performance appraisal and MTI via PSS, we again used bootstrapping within PROCESS (Model 7). In both cases, we constructed a 95% bootstrap CI with 5,000 bootstrap samples ( Shrout and Bolger, 2002 ). Conditional process analysis is based on techniques to assess mediation effects as proposed by MacKinnon et al. (2007) , in combination with procedures for investigating interaction effects as suggested by Muller et al. (2005) . It calculates the relationship between an indirect effect and a moderator and produces an index of moderated mediation that computes whether the mediated buffer effect is significant (see Hayes, 2015 ). In all analyses, we controlled for the age, and gender of the participants. Age stereotypes are negatively related to performance ratings of older workers ( Posthuma and Campion, 2009 ), and gender stereotypes are negatively related to performance evaluations of women ( Heilman, 2001 ).

Descriptives and Correlations

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1 . The average and standard deviation of the performance ratings ( M = 3.337, SD = 0.746) indicated a slightly skewed distribution of this variable, with the majority of ratings being 3 (meets expectations) or 4 (above/exceeding expectations). The correlations show that strengths-based performance appraisal, performance rating, and PSS were all associated with MTI (respectively, r = 0.567, p < 0.01, r = 0.257, p < 0.01, and r = 0.478, p < 0.01). Table 1 also indicates that strengths-based performance appraisal and performance rating were positively related to PSS (respectively, r = 0.572, p < 0.01, and r = 0.257, p < 0.01). Also, strengths-based performance appraisal was associated with the performance rating ( r = 0.342, p < 0.01). Moreover, age was negatively associated with strengths-based performance appraisal, the performance rating, PSS, and the MTI (respectively, r = −0.123, p < 0.05, r = −0.468, p < 0.01, r = −0.106, p < 0.05, and r = −0.217, p < 0.01).

Table 1 . Means, standard deviations, and pearson correlations between the study variables.

Hypotheses Testing

The results of the PROCESS mediation analyses are displayed in Table 2 . Model 1 [ F (3, 418) = 68.35, p < 0.001] shows the main effects of strengths-based performance appraisal on PSS (the mediator variable). Model 2 [ F (4, 417) = 63.50, p < 0.001] shows the main effects of strengths-based performance appraisal, and perceived supervisor on MTI [the dependent variable (DV)]. As can be seen in Table 2 , strengths-based performance appraisal was significantly related to MTI ( B = 0.68, p < 0.001), thereby supporting our first hypothesis. Furthermore, strengths-based performance appraisal was significantly related to PSS ( B = 0.77, p < 0.001) and, in turn, PSS was significantly related to MTI ( B = 0.26, p < 0.001). The bootstrap results for the indirect effect of strength-based performance appraisals on motivation to perform, mediated by PSS, indicated that this effect was significant with a CI excluding zero (respectively, 0.10–0.30, at a 95% CI). This supports our second hypothesis.

Table 2 . Results of mediation analysis of strengths-based performance appraisal on motivation to improve (MTI), mediated by perceived supervisor support (PSS).

Table 3 shows the results of the PROCESS moderated mediation analyses. Model 1 [ F (5, 416) = 44.57, p < 0.001] shows the main effects of strengths-based performance appraisals, performance rating, and the interaction between these variables on PSS (the mediator variable). Model 2 [ F (4, 417) = 63.50, p < 0.001] shows the main effects of strengths-based performance appraisal, and PSS on MTI (the DV).

Table 3 . Results of moderated mediation analysis on PSS and MTI.

As can be seen in Table 3 , the interaction between strengths-based performance appraisal and the performance rating was significantly related to PSS ( B = −0.26, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the bootstrap results for the conditional indirect effect of strength-based performance appraisals on motivation to perform, mediated by PSS, indicated that this effect was significant at both moderator values with CIs excluding zero (respectively, 0.11–0.33 for when the rating is 3, and 0.07–0.23 when the rating is 4, at a 95% CI). The index of moderated mediation indicated that the product term of strengths-based performance appraisal and performance ratings was significantly related to PSS ( B = −0.07, p < 0.01), with confidence levels excluding zero (−0.14 to −0.01 at the 95% CI). This confirms our third hypothesis. Figure 2 displays the interaction plot for the association between strengths-based performance appraisal and PSS under the condition of relatively low (3 = meets expectations) and relatively high (4 = exceeding expectations) performance ratings. The gradient slope for ratings at score 3 is 0.806 ( t = 3.406, p = 0.001), which is steeper than the gradient slope for ratings at score 4 (gradient slope 0.546, t = 1.820, p = 0.071). As can be seen from Figure 2 and the simple slope analysis, the association between strengths-based performance appraisal and PSS is stronger when performance ratings are relatively low.

Figure 2 . Interaction plot for the relation between strengths-based performance appraisal and perceived supervisor support (PSS) at performance rating levels 3 (meets expectations) and 4 (above/exceeding expectations).

This study is an answer to the call of Asplund and Blacksmith (2012) for research that explores the ways in which specific applications of strength-based interventions boost positive outcomes for employees. Based on SDT ( Deci and Ryan, 2008 ), we investigated whether supervisors who focus on subordinates’ strengths in the yearly performance appraisal are perceived as more supportive, and if this perception of supervisor support is in turn associated with a stronger MTI performance. We found that strengths-based performance appraisal contributes to employees’ MTI, partly because it is associated with higher levels of PSS. This is in line with the results of a qualitative study ( Bouskila-Yam and Kluger, 2011 ) and a field experiment ( Budworth et al., 2015 ) that investigated the effectiveness of strengths-based performance appraisal. Our results are also in line with previous research that suggests that social aspects of the performance appraisal sessions have an impact on the evaluation that employees make of their supervisor ( Levy and Williams, 2004 ). By discussing employee’s unique qualities, and how these can be furthered, the employee is invited to participate actively in the conversation, thereby stressing the developmental purpose (versus the evaluative purpose) of the review, leading to more positive evaluations of the supervisor ( Cawley et al., 1998 ).

Moreover, we found that the effect of strengths-based performance appraisal on MTI, mediated by PSS, was even stronger for employees who received a relatively low performance rating. Employees, as receivers of performance evaluations, use the performance appraisal procedure to understand what their supervisor is signaling to them ( Connelly et al., 2011 ). The performance rating usually signals the value of an employee relative to the organization’s standards and other employees ( Adler et al., 2016 ). When the performance rating is relatively high, this gives a powerful signal to the employee that he or she is valued and appreciated. When the performance rating is relatively low, employees are signaled that they are of limited value to the organization, leading to self-protective psychological processes ( Green et al., 2017 ) such as disqualifying the relationship with the supervisor, who is seen as a representative of the organization ( Eisenberger et al., 1986 ). By focusing the appraisal interview on a within-person analysis regarding the situations when this person is at his or her best ( Roberts et al., 2005 ), supervisors can convey positive competence information that may empower employees in coping with a disappointing performance rating, and may be able to successfully address and manage their negative emotions. As a result, employees may give less weight to their relative organizational value, and give more weight to the support offered by their supervisor to build on their personal strengths (Connelly et al., 2011) . Also, previous research has indicated that performance feedback is most likely to lead to performance improvement when feedback recipients perceive a need to change their behavior, believe that change is feasible, and have a positive reaction to the feedback ( Smither et al., 2005 ). Whereas a relatively low rating might signal the need for behavior change, strengths-based performance appraisal might contribute to a positive feedback orientation, and the belief that change is possible by formulating an action plan that is based on the unique qualities of employees ( Hiemstra and Van Yperen, 2015 ).

This study contributes to SDT by investigating the performance appraisal as a social context that may have implications for the need satisfaction of subordinates. Even though research on the job characteristics, types of justice, managerial styles, and types of leadership that support the basic psychological needs has burgeoned ( Deci et al., 2017 ), only very few studies have focused on the performance appraisal interview as a context, which may facilitate or thwart the support of basic psychological needs. Of course, the performance appraisal can be seen as a form of feedback, and several SDT studies have investigated the impact of feedback on need satisfaction. For example, a previous study pointed out that in general positive feedback satisfies the recipient’s basic psychological need for competence and enhances intrinsic motivation by conveying positive competence information ( Deci, 1971 ; Deci et al., 2017 ). Another study showed that managers who give behavior specific and positive feedback are perceived as more autonomy supportive ( Deci, 1989 ). However, the effect of the interplay between different types of feedback as part of the performance appraisal, which is a very realistic scenario in today’s organizations, has to the best of our knowledge never been investigated.

Our study also contributes to the knowledge about the effectiveness of positive organizational interventions. Based on a systematic review of the literature, Meyers et al. (2013) conclude that these interventions are promising for enhancing employee well-being and performance, and diminishing job stress and burnout. However, they call for more research on the operating mechanisms that link positive psychology interventions to specific outcomes. Moreover, they also conclude that there is a predominance of interventions that focus on the enhancement of positive subjective experiences, and that more research is needed to test the effects of interventions that are focused on leveraging positive resources such as employee talents and strengths. By providing insight in the mechanisms and conditions that make strengths-based performance appraisals effective, we answer to this call.

One unexpected finding in our study was that age was negatively associated with the performance rating and the MTI performance. This finding is in line with a meta-analysis by Gordon and Arvey (2004) , who revealed a significant overall effect of age on performance evaluations, with younger workers being evaluated more positively than older applicants and workers. However, research also indicates that the association between age and performance may be based on stereotypical beliefs about older workers and does not correspond with their actual performance ( Ng and Feldman, 2012 ). The fact that this study was conducted within an IT company may also be relevant here. Even though, some mental capacities that are based on experience and creativity such as general knowledge, vocabulary, verbal comprehension, and arithmetic (crystalized intelligence) improve with age, mental capacities such as information processing speed, working memory, abstract reasoning, and processing new information (fluid intelligence) are known to decline with age ( Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004 ). Given the fast developments in the IT sector, especially capacities that are based on fluid intelligence may be seen as essential for a good job performance. The fact that age was also negatively related to perceptions of strengths-based performance appraisal and PSS however signals that there is probably room for improvement in the support of older workers. This was also shown by a study by Kooij et al. (2017) , that indicated that especially older workers benefited from an intervention that was aimed at crafting the job toward the strengths of the worker.

Limitations and Future Research

Our study is subject to four main limitations. A first limitation is that even though we extracted the performance ratings from the company records, our study relies for a large part on cross-sectional employee data. However, whereas employees may not always perceive the objective existence of human resource practices as the organization intends ( Whitener, 2001 ); individual differences among appraisers affect how those who are appraised experience performance appraisal ( Kuvaas, 2007 ). Therefore, the best criterion to use in investigating performance appraisal systems is the reactions of the appraises ( Keeping and Levy, 2000 ; Wright, 2004 ; Kuvaas, 2007 ). Of course, our use of self-report data entails the risk that our results are subject to common-source bias. However, because CFA showed our measures to be distinct and we found a moderation effect ( Siemsen et al., 2010 ), it can be assumed that common-source bias is not a major problem in this study. Since our cross-sectional research design does not allow for causal interpretations, future research should try to replicate our results based on longitudinal field experiments, in which the type of performance appraisal (traditional vs. strengths-based) is manipulated and in which the measurement of PSS and the MTI over time is measured over time. Another option for future research would be to study the real-time communication dynamics that are at the heart of performance appraisals by investigating how performance feedback is actually communicated by supervisors and how the employees react to that feedback, based on recordings or observations. For instance, Asmuß (2013) shows that in the performance appraisal interview, interactional symmetries, and asymmetries can emerge that impede the ideals of these interviews as being dialogs between equal partners. Greater acknowledgement of the interactional nature of the performance appraisal interview might improve our understanding of the conditions that strengthen the impact of strengths-based performance appraisals.

A second limitation concerns our use of the performance ratings that were given by the supervisor. Performance appraisal is a social process and despite the objective connotation, performance ratings risk subjectivity, and may reflect the quality of an employees’ relationship with their supervisor ( Duarte et al., 1994 ; Levy and Williams, 2004 ). Research on employee-supervisor dyads indicates that interpersonal justice, affect and similarity all influence performance ratings (e.g., Duarte et al., 1994 ). Furthermore, the variation in the performance rating was limited, with 59.5% scoring a 3 (meets expectations) and 25% scoring a 4 (above/exceeding expectations). However, restriction of range is not uncommon for performance ratings ( Boswell and Boudreau, 2000 ). Also, since our main intention was to investigate employee reactions to their performance rating, irrespective of how biased or unreliable these performance ratings may be, we do not consider these issues as highly problematic for our study.

The third limitation of this study is that we focused on one of the three basic psychological needs that are proposed by SDT, i.e., the need for relatedness, given the strongly interpersonal nature of the performance appraisal ( Reinke, 2003 ). However, it can also be expected that strengths-based performance appraisals support the needs for competence and autonomy, and therefore have an effect on the MTI performance. Future research should therefore aim to include the mediating role that the fulfillment of the needs for competence and autonomy may play in the effect of strengths-based appraisals on the MTI.

The fourth limitation is that our sample is exclusively based on the employees of one particular IT company, which limits generalizability to other occupations and sectors. Furthermore, the generalizability of our sample to the entire company population is also limited because employees with relatively high performance ratings were overrepresented in our sample. Future research is therefore needed to replicate our findings in other contexts and to investigate whether the results are the same when employees with relatively low performance ratings are equally represented in the sample.

Practical Implications

Despite the fact that most organizations have moved away from a narrow focus on psychometric and evaluation issues to the more developmental and motivational aspects of performance management ( Kuvaas, 2007 ), many managers, HR professionals, and employees are still dissatisfied with their performance management systems ( Adler et al., 2016 ; Murphy, 2019 ). Even though the performance review, and in particular the performance rating, is the most dreaded component of performance management, many companies are reluctant to abolish this rating. Performance ratings help companies to invest greater resources in the employees who provide the most value, take proper action when employees are underperforming, and comply with government regulations regarding the skill certifications that are required to hold specific jobs ( Hunt, 2016 ). However, given its focus on what has already occurred, instead of the infinite possibilities for the future ( Budworth et al., 2019 ); the performance rating is not particularly helpful in stimulating the growth and development of workers. Our study shows that besides the performance rating, also a focus on strengths in the performance interview influences employees’ perception of supervisor support and their MTI their performance. Because people in general – and supervisors are no exception to this – are predisposed toward noticing and remembering negative information more than positive information ( Baumeister et al., 2001 ; Rozin and Royzman, 2001 ) organizations may want to train supervisors in spotting strengths in their subordinates, and helping them to put these strengths to better use. To this end supervisors may be trained to use instruments like the Strengthsfinder ( Rath, 2007 ), the values in action inventory of strengths ( VIA -IS; Peterson and Seligman, 2004 ), feedforward interviews ( Bouskila-Yam and Kluger, 2011 ), reflected best self-exercises ( Roberts et al., 2005 ), and in applying a 3:1 ratio between positive and negative feedback ( Fredrickson and Losada, 2005 ) in the context of performance appraisal interview.

Focusing the conversation on what works helps employees understand their unique patterns of strengths and how to broaden and expand these strengths and talents in the future ( Roberts et al., 2005 ; Kluger and Nir, 2010 ). Focusing on positive performance also helps in preventing the Pavlovian reflex to translate deficits into development goals. In some cases, it may indeed be essential to remediate deficits to the level of acceptable performance. However, in other cases, it may be better to accept that an employee may never be an excellent performer in one particular aspect of his or her job and manage around those deficits, for instance by letting him or her join forces with a colleague with complementary strengths ( van Woerkom and de Bruijn, 2016 ). Our results also indicate that strengths-based performance appraisal is particularly helpful when performance ratings are relatively low. Focusing on what works, how to extend that in the future, and how to use strengths in overcoming deficits, may prevent harm to the supervisor-subordinate relationship and provide employees with tools to deal in a constructive way with a disappointing performance rating. Therefore, particularly organizations that do not want to let go of performance ratings, may be wise to train supervisors in employing a more strengths-based approach to the performance interview.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

The author sequence matches with the contribution to the paper, with the first author taking the largest share in drafting the manuscript and running the analyses. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., et al. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: genius or folly? A debate. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9, 219–252. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.106

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., and Joo, H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback: the strengths-based approach. Bus. Horiz. 55, 105–111. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.004

Asmuß, B. (2013). The emergence of symmetries and asymmetries in performance appraisal interviews: an interactional perspective. Econ. Ind. Democr. 34, 553–570. doi: 10.1177/0143831X13489045

Asplund, J., and Blacksmith, N. (2012). “Leveraging strengths” in The oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship . eds. K. S. Cameron and G. M. Spreitzer (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 353–365.

Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5, 323–370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Borowa, D., Robitschek, C., Harmon, K. A., and Shigemoto, Y. (2016). Posttraumatic stress and growth in student service members and veterans: the role of personal growth initiative. J. Am. Coll. Heal. 64, 527–534. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2016.1188395

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boswell, W. R., and Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and appraisers: the role of perceived appraisal use. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 11, 283–299. doi: 10.1002/1532-1096

Bouskila-Yam, O., and Kluger, A. N. (2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 21, 137–147. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.001

Buckingham, M., and Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths . New York, NY: Free Press.

Budworth, M. H., Harrison, J. A., and Chummar, S. (2019). Beyond feedback: understanding how feedforward can support employee development. J. Manag. Dev. 38, 46–57. doi: 10.1108/JMD-12-2017-0402

Budworth, M. H., Latham, G. P., and Manroop, L. (2015). Looking forward to performance improvement: a field test of the feedforward interview for performance management. Hum. Resour. Manag. 54, 45–54. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21618

Cable, D. M., Gino, F., and Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Adm. Sci. Q. 58, 1–36. doi: 10.1177/0001839213477098

Cable, D., Lee, J. L., Gino, F., and Staats, B. R. (2015). How best-self activation ifluences emotions, physiology and employment relationships. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper (16-029).

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., and Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of field investigations. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 615–633. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.615

Cleveland, J. N., Lim, A. S., and Murphy, K. R. (2007). “Feedback phobia? Why employees do not want to give or receive performance feedback” in Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace. Management challenges and symptoms . eds. J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, and R. J. Klimoski (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar), 168–186.

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., and Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: a review and assessment. J. Manag. 37, 39–67. doi: 10.1177/0149206310388419

Culbert, S. A. (2010). Get rid of the performance review!: How companies can stop intimidating, start managing-and focus on what really matters . New York: Business Plus.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 18, 105–115. doi: 10.1037/h0030644

Deci, E. L. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 580–590. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., and Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 4, 19–43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. 49, 182–185. doi: 10.1037/a0012801

DeNisi, A. S., and Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: a motivational framework. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2, 253–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00042.x

Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., and Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 499–521. doi: 10.5465/256698

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., and Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 500–507. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

Fredrickson, B. L., and Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. Am. Psychol. 60, 678–686. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678

Frodi, A., Bridges, L., and Grolnick, W. (1985). Correlates of mastery-related behavior: a short-term longitudinal study of infants in their second year. Child Dev. 56, 1291–1298. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00197.x

Gagné, M., and Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322

Ghielen, S. T. S., van Woerkom, M., and Meyers, M. C. (2018). Promoting positive outcomes through strengths interventions: a literature review. J. Posit. Psychol. 13, 573–585. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2017.1365164

Gordon, R. A., and Arvey, R. D. (2004). Age bias in laboratory and field settings: a meta-analytic investigation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 468–492. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02557.x

Graves, L. M., and Luciano, M. M. (2013). Self-determination at work: understanding the role of leader-member exchange. Motiv. Emot. 37, 518–536. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9336-z

Green, P., Gino, F., and Staats, B. R. (2017). Shopping for confirmation: How disconfirming feedback shapes social networks . Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School.

Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., and Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 102, 22–41. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.006

Haggerty, J., and Wright, P. (2009). “Strong situations and firm performance: a proposed re-conceptualization of the role of the HR function” in The sage handbook of human resource management . eds. A. Wilkinson, N. Bacon, T. Redman, and S. Snell (London: Sage), 100–114.

Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: a quarter-century journey. J. Vocat. Behav. 65, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.006

Harris, M. M., and Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisory, self-peer, and peer-subordinate ratings. Pers. Psychol. 41, 43–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . New York: Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivar. Behav. Res. 50, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2014.962683

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57, 657–674. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234

Heneman, H. G. (1974). Comparisons of self‐ and superior ratings of managerial performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 59, 638–642. doi: 10.1037/h0037341

Hiemstra, D., and Van Yperen, N. W. (2015). The effects of strength-based versus deficit-based self-regulated learning strategies on students’ effort intentions. Motiv. Emot. 39, 656–668. doi: 10.1007/s11031-015-9488-8

Hunt, S. T. (2016). Rating performance may be difficult, but it is also necessary. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9, 296–304. doi: 10.1017/iop.2016.14

Jawahar, I. M. (2010). The mediating role of appraisal feedback reactions on the relationship between rater feedback-related behaviors and ratee performance. Group Org. Manag. 35, 494–526. doi: 10.1177/1059601110378294

Kanfer, R., and Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29, 440–458. doi: 10.5465/amr.2004.13670969

Keeping, L. M., and Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling, and method bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 708–723. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708

Kluger, A. N., and Nir, D. (2010). The feedforward interview. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 20, 235–246. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.002

Kooij, D. T. A. M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L., and Denissen, J. A. (2017). Job crafting towards strengths and interests: the effects of a job crafting intervention on person-job fit and the role of age. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 971–981. doi: 10.1037/apl0000194

Kuvaas, B. (2007). Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and work performance. Pers. Rev. 36, 378–397. doi: 10.1108/00483480710731338

Lee, J. J., Gino, F., Cable, D. M., and Staats, B. R. (2016). Preparing the self for team entry: how relational affirmation improves team performance. Harvard Business School working paper series. 16–111, 2–48.

Levy, P. E., and Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J. Manag. 30, 881–905. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005

Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Wood, A. M., Gillett, R., and Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals: effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for coaching psychologists. Int. Coach. Psychol. Rev. 5, 6–15.

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., and Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 7, 209–221. doi: 10.5465/amle.2008.32712618

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., and Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 593–614. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542

McAdams, D. P. (1988). Biography, narrative, and lives: an introduction. J. Pers. 56, 1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1988.tb00460.x

Meinecke, A. L., and Kauffeld, S. (2019). Engaging the hearts and minds of followers: leader empathy and language style matching during appraisal interviews. J. Bus. Psychol. 34, 485–501. doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-9554-9

Meyer, H. H. (1980). Self-appraisal of job performance. Pers. Psychol. 33, 291–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb02351.x

Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., and Bakker, A. B. (2013). The added value of the positive: a literature review of positive psychology interventions in organizations. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 22, 618–632. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.694689

Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., de Reuver, R., Bakk, Z., and Oberski, D. L. (2015). Enhancing psychological capital and personal growth initiative: working on strengths or deficiencies? J. Couns. Psychol. 62, 50–62. doi: 10.1037/cou0000050

Miglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A. B., and Martin-Krumm, C. (2020). Strength use in the workplace: a literature review. J. Happiness Stud. 21, 737–764. doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., and Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 852–863. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852

Murphy, K. R. (2019). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 30, 13–31. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12259

Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., and Mohler, C. (2001). “Reliability, validity, and meaningfulness ofmultisource ratings” in Handbook of multisource feedback . eds. D. Bracken, C. Timmreck, and A. Church (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 130–148.

Neville, L., and Roulin, N. (2016). Genius or folly? It depends on whether performance ratings survive the psychological immune system. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9, 281–288. doi: 10.1017/iop.2016.12

Ng, T. W. H., and Feldman, D. C. (2012). Evaluating six common stereotypes about older workers with meta-analytical data. Pers. Psychol. 65, 821–858. doi: 10.1111/peps.12003

Pearce, J. L., and Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 211–218. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.211

Peterson, C., and Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: a meta-analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. 51, 709–732. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21499

Pichler, S., Beenen, G., and Wood, S. (2018). Feedback frequency and appraisal reactions: a meta-analytic test of moderators. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1443961 [Epub ahead of print]

Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., and Swarm, W. B. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Adm. Sci. Q. 47, 296–324. doi: 10.2307/3094807

Poole, P. P., Gioia, D. A., and Gray, B. (1989). Influence modes, schema change, and organizational transformation. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 25, 271–289. doi: 10.1177/0021886389253004

Posthuma, R. A., and Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. J. Manag. 35, 158–188. doi: 10.1177/0149206308318617

Quinlan, D. M., Swain, N., Cameron, C., and Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2015). How “other people matter” in a classroom-based strengths intervention: exploring interpersonal strategies and classroom outcomes. J. Posit. Psychol. 10, 77–89. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2014.920407

Quinlan, D., Swain, N., and Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2012). Character strengths interventions: building on what we know for improved outcomes. J. Happiness Stud. 13, 1145–1163. doi: 10.1007/s10902-011-9311-5

Rath, T. (2007). Strengthsfinder 2.0 . Washington: Gallup Press.

Reinke, S. J. (2003). Does the form really matter? Leadership, trust, and acceptance of the performance appraisal process. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 23, 23–37. doi: 10.1177/0734371x02250109

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., and Armali, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 825–836. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825

Roberson, Q. M., and Stewart, M. M. (2006). Understanding the motivational effects of procedural and informational justice in feedback processes. Br. J. Psychol. 97, 281–298. doi: 10.1348/000712605X80146

Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., and Quinn, R. E. (2005). Composing the reflected best-self portrait: building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30, 712–736. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.18378874

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adm. Sci. Q. 41, 574–599. doi: 10.2307/2393868

Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: an unappreciated way of being. Couns. Psychol. 5, 2–10. doi: 10.1177/001100007500500202

Ross, L. (1977). “The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process” in Advances in experimental social psychology . ed. L. Berkowitz (New York, NY: Academic Press), 173–220.

Rozin, P., and Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 296–320. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0504_2

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Seligman, M. E. P., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. Am. Psychol. 55, 5–14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

Selvarajan, T. T., and Cloninger, P. A. (2012). Can performance appraisals motivate employees to improve performance? A Mexican study. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 23, 3063–3084. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.637069

Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., and Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use and relatedness need-satisfaction: disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 766–775. doi: 10.1037/a0022407

Shrout, P. E., and Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 7, 422–445. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., and Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organ. Res. Methods 13, 456–476. doi: 10.1177/1094428109351241

Smither, J. W., London, M., and Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Pers. Psychol. 58, 33–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x

Swann, W. B. Jr., Milton, L. P., and Polzer, J. T. (2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 238–250. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.238

Thoen, M. A., and Robitschek, C. (2013). Intentional growth training: developing an intervention to increase personal growth initiative. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being. 5, 149–170. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12001

van Woerkom, M., and de Bruijn, M. (2016). Why performance appraisal does not lead to performance improvement: excellent performance as a function of uniqueness instead of uniformity. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9, 275–281. doi: 10.1017/iop.2016.11

van Woerkom, M., and Meyers, M. C. (2015). My strengths count! Effects of a strengths-based psychological climate on positive affect and job performance. Hum. Resour. Manag. 54, 81–103. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21623

van Woerkom, M., and Meyers, M. C. (2019). Strengthening personal growth initiative; the effects of a strengths intervention on personal growth initiative with general self-efficacy as moderator and mediator. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 92, 98–121. doi: 10.1111/joop.12240

van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A. B., de Beer, L., and Rothmann, S. Jr. (2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: development and validation of a questionnaire. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25, 960–975. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010

Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do high commitment human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. J. Manag. 27, 515–535. doi: 10.1177/014920630102700502

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., and Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: a longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Pers. Individ. Differ. 50, 15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.004

Wright, R. P. (2004). Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioral responses in appraisal research. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 339–374. doi: 10.1002/job.245

Keywords: performance appraisal, perceived supervisor support, strengths, performance rating, motivation

Citation: van Woerkom M and Kroon B (2020) The Effect of Strengths-Based Performance Appraisal on Perceived Supervisor Support and the Motivation to Improve Performance. Front. Psychol . 11:1883. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01883

Received: 08 November 2019; Accepted: 07 July 2020; Published: 31 July 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 van Woerkom and Kroon. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Marianne van Woerkom, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Oncol Pract
• v.7(2); 2011 Mar

Performance Appraisal: A Tool for Practice Improvement

Dean h. gesme.

Minnesota Oncology, Minneapolis, MN; Wiseman Communications, Washington, DC

Marian Wiseman

Yours may be among the many oncology practices without an appropriate performance review system in place. Lack of an effective evaluation system increases the risk of inefficiency, poor office morale, and high turnover rates.

Do these statements describe your practice?

• Within 30 days, physicians we recruit know specific changes they should make to succeed with our practice.
• Employees have specific performance improvement plans.
• Accountability for job performance is clear to each employee and is consistently applied.
• The partners in the practice regularly identify their own strengths and areas to improve.

If not, you may be among the many oncology practices that do not have appropriate performance review systems in place. Data do not exist, as far as we know, about the percentage of oncology practices that systematically review performance of employees or physicians. But we do know that some practices have no evaluation system at all, and many have a system that is cumbersome, ineffective, or both. Regarding physician appraisals, one consultant reported, “In my experience most groups either don't do it or don't do it well.”

Why Bother?

“The payoff is improved job performance—it's as simple as that,” says Robert J. Solomon, PhD, a professor in organizational behavior at William & Mary's Mason School of Business (Williamsburg, VA) and author of The Physician Manager's Handbook. “The performance appraisal is the mediator between what you want done and motivating the employee to do it. The extent to which you can tie performance to compensation makes the appraisal much more powerful. It gives you the basis to say ‘your job performance just doesn't merit an increase.’”

Not having an effective evaluation system increases the risk of inefficiency, poor office morale, and high turnover rates. Employees may not receive training that can help them improve, and they are likely to distrust the fairness of workload distribution, salaries, and bonuses. High-performing employees can be demoralized by feeling that their work goes unnoticed or by seeing lower performers receive the same treatment and compensation that they receive.

A good appraisal system also aids management, giving practice leaders the information needed for management decisions such as staff development, job structuring and promotions, workload distribution, and compensation. Well-documented performance appraisals also provide a sound basis for disciplinary actions and termination decisions and provide back-up if such actions are challenged. Consistently applied appraisals are also important if an employee alleges wrongful discharge or violation of Equal Employment Opportunity laws.

Elements of an Effective Performance Appraisal System

To be effective—and by that we mean contributing to improved performance, achieving practice goals, and supporting individual development—the performance appraisal should be a systematic, year-round approach that links performance to objectives and to consequences. Although the appraisal process for physicians will differ from that of staff, the essential characteristics of effective evaluation listed here apply to both groups:

Job-Specific Criteria

Create an appraisal tool on the basis of an individual's job description (Data Supplement 1). If your practice does not have position descriptions, or they are out of date, start there. Written job duties are essential for hiring the right people and establishing expectations. Evaluate the nurse practitioner on the specific responsibilities he or she has, and do the same for the receptionist and the insurance reimbursement specialist. Conversely, do not include activities unrelated to an individual's job responsibilities.

Schedule and Schedule Adherence

Set a schedule for written evaluations and review to be performed at least annually. Some practices do all appraisal reviews at the same time each year; others schedule them to occur within 30 days of the anniversary of hire or follow another approach. No single way is best; use a schedule that works well for your practice. Managers often procrastinate in conducting reviews, so create an oversight system to ensure that the deadline is met. Ignoring overdue evaluations makes the employee feel devalued and can contribute to poor morale. Meeting appraisal deadlines should be a criterion in each supervisor's job description.

Alignment With Strategic Practice Objectives

This element may seem like a “no-brainer,” but take time to review evaluation criteria for all staff physicians, in light of your group's strategic objectives. Given your marketing objectives, should physicians have a responsibility to participate in a hospital committee or to meet personally with referring physicians? What is an achievable improvement goal for the collection rate or for receivables that are more than 120 days old?

Use of Both Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria

Include measurable factors in evaluation. For the receptionist, examples of quantitative criteria are collecting the patient's copayment 90% of the time and registering patients with an error rate of less than 2%. Examples of physician quantitative criteria are making two patient education presentations a year, achieving a certain patient satisfaction rate (if patient surveys are conducted), and dictating 90% of patient records within 48 hours. Examples of qualitative criteria for evaluating the receptionist are “seeks innovative solutions” and “maintains composure and performs well in stressful situations.” For physicians, “stays abreast of clinical advances” and “maintains good relationships with referring physicians” are examples.

Ongoing and Immediate Feedback

“Immediate feedback is the most critical element and the most effective performance appraisal procedure” says Solomon. “If the performance is good, it's more motivational to comment right then and there. On the other hand, if a problem occurs or performance needs improvement, you will immediately begin to modify the substandard behavior.” If you do not give employees immediate feedback when there is a performance lapse, they can fairly assume their performance is satisfactory, leading to unmet practice goals and a missed coaching moment. Solomon clarifies that “immediate” does not mean commenting in front of others, nor does it mean commenting two weeks later. Talking to the employee privately, in the next few hours or within a day or two, is appropriate. If you are not the direct supervisor, it may be appropriate to comment to the employee's manager rather than directly to the individual, so as not to circumvent the manager's authority. Finally, providing immediate feedback throughout the year ensures that the regularly scheduled review contains no surprises—a tenet of effective performance appraisal.

Self-Evaluation

“The process of writing a self-evaluation causes the employee to consider his or her job performance as a supervisor would, and to begin thinking about changes for the future,” Solomon says. Kenneth T. Hertz, FACMPA, principal with the Medical Group Management Association Health Care Consulting Group (Englewood, CO), agrees, and outlines the following process: A week or more ahead of their review, give employees a copy of their own evaluation instrument and job description (Data Supplement 2). Ask them to identify aspects of the job that warrant changes in the job description; evaluate themselves; and come prepared to talk about their performance, strengths and weaknesses, and the goals they would like to set for professional and personal development.

Written Evaluation Report and In-Person Meeting

Your evaluation should always be put in writing. Evaluate the employee separately on each factor in the job description. Be specific and direct, using concise and unambiguous language. Include examples to explain and support your report. Evaluate behavior, performance, and output, not the employee's personality. At an appointed meeting with the employee, give the employee a copy of your written analysis and outline the ways you reached your assessment, such as direct observation, review of the employee's work, and observations by others. Solicit the employee's comments on every factor in the evaluation. Discuss whether the job description should be changed. At the end of the discussion of performance, identify goals for improvement.

Performance Plan

The performance appraisal should not be simply a report card. As Hertz states, “If you miss setting goals for development, it becomes a hollow process.” Using the results of the performance appraisal, identify, with the employee, very specific goals and timelines for achieving them. The goals might address improvement areas or development in an aspect of the job that the person finds interesting. Discuss with the employee possible reasons for poor performance and ways to improve. For instance, if the evaluation shows that the employee is not meeting expectations for data entry, is training needed on software updates that have been issued? Is attendance or punctuality poor? Have other assignments kept him or her from the task? After agreeing on the reason(s), set a goal for improvement and create a specific plan, including a timeline, to achieve it. In some cases, assign creation of the initial plan to the employee, but make certain to review it and revise if necessary. In the example about data entry, if the employee needs training, offer suggestions he or she might want to consider as first steps in the performance plan, such as setting aside time to use the software tutorial or user manual, identifying training available from the vendor, setting up training sessions with a senior colleague, or paying a consultant or staff member from another practice to work with the employee after hours.

Physician Performance Evaluations

If your practice has never engaged in a formal physician evaluation process, now would be a great time to start. As consultant Hertz puts it, “Unless you've been off the planet for the last year or two, you've heard about accountable care. The savvy practice will begin to do its own internal evaluation and performance appraisal of physicians and outcomes, using protocols or clinical pathways to measure physician performance again standards.” That said, Hertz acknowledges that the group must have a culture that supports evaluation of individuals. Solomon echoes this perspective. “Physicians are not used to this. But the demand for demonstrating outcomes is increasing. Physicians aren't going to be able to do what they want however they want.”

How to begin? Always keep in mind, and stress to others, that performance evaluation is about achieving strategic practice goals, improving care, and improving patient satisfaction—it is not about being intrusive or criticizing anyone's practice. People typically resist change, so start slowly. Engage the group in a discussion about achieving goals and improving performance, both clinical and behavioral. If your practice has done strategic planning, use those goals.

An effective performance appraisal system for physicians will have the same elements as those listed above. Physicians typically do not have job descriptions, so start with listing the responsibilities of each physician, both clinically and behaviorally, in achieving the practice goals (Data Supplements 3 and 4). Performance in areas of timeliness for appointments, efficient use of the electronic medical record system, marketing, participation in tumor boards, community outreach, clinical care, and effective interaction with other providers are all areas of performance that might be considered important by the group.

Feedback to Newly Hired Individuals

Whether or not your group has a performance appraisal system in place for all physicians, Hertz emphasizes that feedback to new physicians is absolutely critical for recruitment and retention. “The process should be structured, with assignments and a schedule for providing feedback,” he advises. “In the first three months the administrator and the president of the group or an assigned physician should meet with the new doctor every month, maybe every two weeks. Someone needs to take time to review charts and obtain feedback from the other clinical staff. Talk to the physician about how he or she is doing in patient care, documentation, coding, interactions with nurses and patients. Be specific about whether expectations are being met.”

If improvement is needed, jointly develop a performance plan. Hertz cautions that a new recruit who doesn't know how he is doing is likely to leave. “The group just paid maybe $15,000 to move the family. Maybe a sign-on bonus was paid. The time and effort needed to provide feedback is worth the investment.”

Similarly, with new administrative or clinical staff, help them start off right by providing frequent feedback, using the job description as a guide to cover each area of accountability. Assign a mentor to orient the individual and answer day-to-day questions. A 90-day probationary period is common, but don't wait that long to discuss performance. A 30-day initial review coupled with performance planning to build on strengths and address areas for improvement can be valuable at this stage.

Multisource Feedback: The 360 Review

Tools that give credible assessments from others can be beneficial in performance appraisal. The 360 review, also referred to as multisource feedback, is such a tool. In a 360 review, performance evaluation is solicited from people who interact with the individual being appraised, including peers, subordinates, and managers (Data Supplement 5). Ideally, information from patients would also be used.

Both Solomon and Hertz say that a 360 review can be a valuable tool but can easily be misused or used incompetently. Solomon notes, “It should focus on problem identification and resolution—how did that person's performance affect me and my performance?” Hertz advises using professional consultation, “A 360 review needs to be professionally administered, with appropriate development of survey instruments, assurance of anonymity, and protection of individuals from retribution. It should be done in a culture that embraces change.” Corroborating this perspective, Dubinsky et al 1 report that implementing multisource feedback as part of the performance appraisal process involves a culture change and should be approached as a change management project, with extensive communication and training for all involved.

Performance appraisal is a process, not a form. Accordingly, beware of adopting a template or using a form from another practice. To be meaningful to both the individual and the practice, the appraisal must be correlated with specific responsibilities and must be used to develop performance improvement goals.

Solomon comments that the best way to think about performance appraisal is as one of a number of tools to make a practice more effective. “The appraisal is the sum total of what has already occurred, including hiring and managing. You can't take these processes in isolation. If you're doing a bad job in the selection process, then performance appraisal becomes more difficult, because now you're trying to clean up a mess that should never have been there to begin with. You can't say ‘we're going to fix all of our front-office problems by putting in a performance appraisal system.’ You need a selection process that works effectively, a performance appraisal system that works effectively, and managers who understand how to lead and motivate people.”

Further Information

Leading Physicians Through Change: How to Achieve and Sustain Results , by Jack Silversin and Mary Jane Kornacki. Tampa, FL: American College of Physician Executives, 2000 (available at www.acpe.org/publications )

Partner Performance Counseling, Chapter 22 in Managing the Professional Service Firm , by David Maister. New York: The Free Press, 1993 (available at www.davidmaister.com )

Performance Appraisal Source Book , by Mike Deblieux. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management, 2003 (available at www.shrm.org )

The Physician Manager's Handbook: Essential Business Skills for Succeeding in Health Care , 2nd ed., by Robert J. Solomon. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2008 (available at www.jblearning.com )

Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: Dean H. Gesme, Marian Wiseman

Administrative support: Dean H. Gesme, Marian Wiseman

Collection and assembly of data: Marian Wiseman

Data analysis and interpretation: Dean H. Gesme, Marian Wiseman

Manuscript writing: Dean H. Gesme, Marian Wiseman

Final approval of manuscript: Dean H. Gesme, Marian Wiseman