The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

JMD
29,1

Assessing the ethics of

implementing performance
appraisal systems

38

George P. Sillup and Ronald Klimberg

Saint Josephs University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Received 14 November 2008

Revised 17 March 2009
Accepted 12 March 2009

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to try to understand better whether performance appraisal
(PA) helps performance evaluators (PEs) to manage more effectively and meet employees
expectations in US-based corporations.
Design/methodology/approach A 54-item research instrument was developed and implemented
using structured interviews with 54 PEs, who worked at five US-based corporations (Aetna Insurance,
IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Valspar, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals). Responses were statistically analyzed
with descriptive statistics and decision trees.
Findings Time dedicated to implementing PA was the most important factor leading to ethical
issues. PEs with the highest educational levels and most experience spent the least amount of time
(1.86 vs 3.19 hours) implementing PA. Most PEs (79.6 percent) solicited feedback about employees
performance from employees peers but 20 percent did not. Additionally, not a single PE had PA as a
specific objective, making it difficult to sequester time necessary for PA. Older PEs felt PA helped
them manage more effectively and PEs who were Black or White and from Marketing/Sales were most
favorable about meeting employees PA expectations. There were no remarkable differences among
PA systems at the five corporations, e.g. 360-degree training.
Research limitations/implications Structured interviews required delicate interaction due to
sensitivity about the US economy and resulting layoffs within interviewees corporations.
Practical implications PEs, particularly older managers with higher educational levels, should
have a PA objective and be held accountable to it to ensure that they dedicate time necessary to
complete PA in the way the PA system intends.
Originality/value The paper provides insight about PA within the US corporate setting and will
be highly interesting to those in that field.
Keywords Performance appraisal, Ethics, Working practices, Total quality management,
United States of America
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Management Development

Vol. 29 No. 1, 2010
pp. 38-55
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/02621711011009063

Introduction
The evolution of performance appraisal systems
The process of appraising employee performance developed as a business practice
with the emergence of big business in the early twentieth century in the USA. Karl
Marxs work can be said to subject big business to moral scrutiny and encourage it to
place value on employees contributions rather than only on the production of its
products (Newton and Schmidt, 2004). Progress was slow and employees were
considered a means to an end in Kantian terms (Winstanley, 1996) because big
The authors wish to acknowledge the support from the Saint Josephs University Pedro Arrupe
Center for Business Ethics and intellectual guidance from John J. McCall and Stephen J. Porth.

business was busy building products for consumption around defining events of the
first half of last century (the First World War, Great Depression, New Deal, the Second
World War) as well as reluctantly recognizing the creation of workers unions and
coming to terms with them. Following the Second World War, big business or todays
corporations began using PA, especially for their at will or non-union employees
(DeLucca, 2008). However, there were different opinions about the value of
implementing PA. From the perspective of total quality management, PA was
considered an out-of-date managerial premise (Scholtes, 1993). From the perspective of
using standardized job competencies linked to recognition, PA has been shown to
improve corporations financial performance as well as employees development (Eyes,
1993). This is not a new idea. As far back as 1862 and very recently within Malaysian
education, PA emphasized metrics of personal development and not just the bottom
line (Grint, 1993; Spicer and Rusli, 2006).
Ethical treatment of employees was enhanced by the civil rights and environmental
movements, events that caused a revolution of rising moral expectations for US
corporations and created a new environment for doing business that resulted in
numerous legislative acts benefiting the employee, e.g. Civil Rights Act of 1964 at the
national level, Massachusetts Right-to-Know Law at the state level and Collective
Bargaining at the union contract level. Notwithstanding, most employees in the US still
work at will without contractual assurance of job security (Weiss, 2003). Motivated
further by emerging global competition over the last two decades, virtually all US
corporations are implementing PA systems that evaluate employees contributions, such
as 360-feedback.
However, this requires more time for implementation, which is a challenge for PEs,
who are already short of time completing expanded objectives from corporate
downsizing. Furthermore, the basis of PA is people making judgments about other
people in an organized setting; therefore, insufficient time for PA is one way to be
unfair to employees in the short-term and jeopardizes employees development in the
long term (Cascio, 1991). This review of the literature explores how time and other
areas with potential ethical implications for PEs, such as the races of those whose
performance is being evaluated, and addresses the following research questions about
PA in US-based corporations:
RQ1. Do backgrounds of PEs influence their judgments about employees
performance (e.g. educational level)?
RQ2. Does PA help PEs manage more effectively?
RQ3. Does PA help PEs better meet the expectations of employees whose
performance is being assessed?
RQ4. What is the relationship between the time dedicated to conducting PA and the
background of the PE?
Literature review
Winstanleys article about the ethics of performance management sets a tone about
whether it is possible to develop an ethical approach to PA. It acknowledges the
shortcomings of PA systems and identifies four ethical principles integral to the PA
process:

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
39

JMD
29,1

40

(1) respect for the individual employee;

(2) mutual respect between the PE and employee whose performance is being
evaluated;
(3) fairness in the PA system and its effect on employees whose performance is
being evaluated (Wayne and Liden, 1995); and
(4) transparency of decision making to ensure employees understand this PA
criterion.
Winstanleys work was based on a not-for-profit organization, the British School of
Osteopathy, where there is more professional autonomy than in large corporations
where traditional approaches to PA are often flawed during implementation and can
demotivate employees (Winstanley, 1996).
An alternative to Winstanleys four ethical principles is to consider effective PA
systems in terms of relevancy, sensitivity, reliability, acceptability and practicality.
Relevance implies there are clear links between the tasks for a job and an
organizations objectives (Borman, 1991). Sensitivity implies that a PA system is
capable of distinguishing effective from ineffective performance. Reliability refers
to consistency of judgment; PEs working independently should agree on an
employees PA (Kerr and Sherman, 1995). Acceptability is often considered the
most important requirement; any PA system must have the support of employees
who use it. Unfortunately, many PA systems fail because businesses have not put
enough effort into attaining support from those who will implement the PA
system (Cascio, 1998).
In a broader context, relevance, sensitivity and reliability are simply technical
components of a PA system designed to make decisions about employees. Because
some degree of error is possible, determining the optimal PA system will help avoid
unethical situations and result in the greatest benefit for the corporation and its
employees. Today, corporations, such as the five in this study, have endorsed and are
using a PA system they believe ensures consistent and accurate evaluation of
employees performance.
Preparing for successful PA implementation
Preparing for implementation is as important as actual implementation and a way to
help prevent unethical situations that occur during implementation. Success begins
with top-down support but requires bottom-up support for it to work (Buchner, 2007).
To enhance employees awareness about how the PA system is intended to operate
within the corporation, employees should receive training as well as have improved
performance and development key objectives (Thornton and Zorich, 1980).
Setting fair performance standards
Consistent and fair performance standards are essential for performance evaluations
(Cascio, 1998). It is important to recognize that some jobs, such as production, lend
themselves to quantitative performance measures (e.g. the number of units sold).
For others, such as new product development, setting standards is more subjective
and frequently a matter of manager and employee agreement (Nathan and Cascio,
1986).

Determining the optimal PA system

Once performance standards are set, corporations need to consider which PA system is
optimal to meet its objectives and motivate employees. A fundamental issue for
corporations is whether the PA system rewards employees for generating short-term
results (e.g. sales during business quarter) or for completing long-term results (Beatty,
1989). Additionally, a PA system should help managers groom their employees to
accomplish objectives that will help the corporation gain competitive advantage
(Cascio, 1991). In specialized situations, such as drug development within the
pharmaceutical industry, efforts do not always result in a new drug during the
one-year PA period. To be successful, it is pertinent to customize PA for each
environment, the way R&D at Pharmex in the UK did (Randle, 1997).
Of many available PA systems (e.g. computer monitoring), a multi-rater or 360-degree
feedback system is being used by several major corporations such as Lockheed-Martin
and the five corporations in this study. Multi-rater PA incorporates feedback from a range
of employees (e.g. peers) as well as solicits direct input from customers (Tornow, 1993).
Furthermore, research about 360-degree PA systems suggests that it is a useful way to
enhance the flow of information within a corporation (Garavan and Morley, 1997) and
demonstrated in several successful multi-rater systems, such as the Balanced Scorecard
and European Model for Self Appraisal (Kaplan and Norton, 2006). However, any
multi-rater system introduces the chance for compromising an employees privacy and
requires a corporation to adopt appropriate measures to protect it (Carayon, 1993).
Generally, PA systems consist of five component areas as depicted in Figure 1:
(1) establishing employees objectives;
(2) gathering feedback about employees performance;

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
41

Figure 1.
Performance appraisal
process

JMD
29,1

42

(3) summarizing feedback about the employee;

(4) determining/discussing performance assessment; and
(5) gaining employees understanding/setting new objectives.
When implemented with integrity, they aid an employees career development and a
corporations ability to meet its objectives. When the component areas are not
implemented with integrity, they can lead to ethical transgressions.
Assessing time necessary for implementation
Traditionally, PA is completed once a year and often includes a non-rated mid-year
discussion. Research has indicated that this is too infrequent because raters face
difficulties remembering what employees did over the previous six-to-12 months
(Campbell et al., 1970). Corporations with monthly or quarterly PA assessments
outperformed competitors on every financial and productivity measure and got
positive feedback from employees about the fairness of the PA system (Juran, 2004).
However, frequent PA is time consuming and may make employees feel as though
their performance is always being assessed. The amount of time that frequent PA
requires is best understood when considered from the perspective of the PE, who has
difficulty sequestering time to complete PA assessment once a year. Furthermore,
when time is constrained, PEs may revert to familiar objective measures, such as
financial metrics and a tell and sell approach (Dorfman et al., 1986).
Identifying who assesses performance
The PEs who evaluate performance are critically important to the success of any PA
system. They must accept the importance of PA as an organizational objective and
integral part of their job, rather than a make-work hassle. But who should rate
performance in an organization? The most fundamental requirement is that PEs have
adequate opportunity to observe employees performance over the assessment period
and suggests several possible raters:
.
Immediate managers. These conduct up to 98 percent of PA because they are
usually most familiar with employees performance and responsible for
rewarding employees performance (Becker and Klimoski, 1989). Additionally,
they have the best opportunity to review employees performance routinely in
advance of the PA meeting (Cyr, 1993).
.
Peers. In some jobs, such as outside sales, an immediate manager may not have
an opportunity to observe actual job performance routinely. In these situations,
assessment by peers can provide objective feedback (McEvoy and Buller, 1987).
Friendship bias is always possible but it can be reduced by training what peers
need to evaluate (Reilly et al., 1996).
.
Direct reports. These empower an employee to assess his/her immediate
managers performance because employees know how their managers work. To
protect against retribution, ratings are combined into an overall rating (Campbell
and Lee, 1988). This approach has been implemented at IBM since the 1960 s
(Bernardin et al., 1993).
.
Self-appraisal. Employees with an opportunity to evaluate their own
performance are motivated and have fewer concerns about unethical

treatment. Self-appraisal can be improved with a number of techniques, e.g.

relative versus absolute scales (Hartel, 1993). Self-appraisal is being used by
virtually all corporations today to include those in this study.
Customers. In some situations, external consumers can provide information
about job performance because they share a common interest in the corporations
product and consistently interact with employees. Input from customers is being
used by numerous corporations today (Yammarino and Atwater, 1997).

Research indicates that data from multiple sources are desirable because they give a
complete perspective about employees performance and reduce the chance of ethical
concerns (Longenecker et al., 1987). Additionally, training programs for PEs focus on
eliminating judgmental biases, improving observational/judgmental skills and
enhancing ability to communicate appraisal information in a constructive manner
(Pulakos, 1986; Sanchez and DeLaTorre, 1996).

Implementing PA and its challenges

Implementation of PA is challenging because any time judgments are made about
people there is opportunity for ethical transgressions, especially in todays volatile
business environment. Consequently, ethics and trust within a corporation must be
linked to improving organizational performance and employee development to
successfully implementing PA (Banner and Cooke, 1984; Averson, 2002). If not enough
emphasis is placed on the organizations performance, it can preclude employee
development (Pringle and Longenecker, 1982; Axline, 1996). Moreover, most PA
systems are the basis of decisions regarding compensation, which creates ethical
dilemmas both for the PE and the employee (Caproni, 2005).
Even when there is harmony between the corporations bottom line and employee
development, Winstanleys research suggests that traditional approaches to PA
typically do not succeed in obtaining their objectives (Winstanley, 1996). This can
result from escalation of employees objectives. For example quantitative goals create
Catch-22 situations for employees with regard to their performance (Pringle and
Longenecker, 1982). When these goals are achieved, then future goals are made even
more difficult to achieve and inevitably lead to failure (Longenecker and Ludwig, 1990).
Another issue often at the core of unethical performance appraisals is the lack of
objectivity with regard to the ratings. PEs can be too harsh and render lower than
expected ratings (Kerssens-van Drongelen and Fisscher, 2003). PEs can also be too
lenient, leading to inflated ratings that avoid conflict but misguide an employee
(Winstanley, 1980). Bowman extends the idea of a sugar-coated PA further by
describing how some PEs have a personnel discussion that does not provide clear
performance ratings (Bowman, 1999). Rating is also subject to distortion by one of the
judgmental biases, such as the halo effect, where a PE extrapolates one positive
observation and projects it into all facets of the employees performance (Sumer and
Knight, 1996).
By delineating the prerequisites of effective PA and reviewing the challenges of
successfully implementing PA, the literature establishes the basis to examine potential
ethical challenges to PA within the US at will corporate setting.

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
43

JMD
29,1

44

Research methodology
An effectively implemented PA system can improve employees work performance
and, therefore, the overall performance of the corporation but PA is an inexact human
process and subject to inaccuracies. PEs are faced with challenges before and/or during
implementation. Additionally, employees are very sensitive about PA because a low
PA rating can result losing their job. To understand how these challenges affect the
PE, a structured interview instrument was developed and included three domains
intended to learn about:
(1) backgrounds of the PEs and how they conducted PA;
(2) employees whose performance was being evaluated; and
(3) outputs of PA for the PEs and employees being evaluated.
The questions that populated the domains were derived from one authors extensive
experience implementing PA within corporations (Sillup) and awareness of
phraseology most likely to elicit responses. For example, questions that were vague
would not be answered. To avoid pre-determining responses, a comprehensive list of
questions were asked to determine the 54 items in the instrument and to identify
potential relationships among the responses. Accordingly, questions asked about the
PE were also asked about the employees whose performance was being evaluated.
Furthermore, the order in which the questions were asked built a crescendo from
easy-to-answer background information, e.g. age range, to more incisive questions
about the outputs of PA.
Questions for all domains were assessed for their content, criterion-related and
construct validity (DeVellis, 1991). Content validity for the first two domains was
easier to determine because the domain was more defined, e.g. years working
professionally. Content validity for the third domain addressing outcomes was more
difficult because it inquired about outcomes as well as attitudes of the respondents, e.g.
determining employees progress. Here, construct validity was met by incorporating
questions that represented a randomly selected subset of possible PA outputs. For all
three domains, it was believed that criterion-related validity was met because answers
to the questions attained information that had an empirical outcome along with an
optimal outcome of PA (i.e. employee accomplishes objectives and receives appropriate
development). Similarly, construct validity for the three domains was attained because
there was a theoretical relationship between the answer to one question and answers to
other questions. For example, analyzing the PEs educational levels and their
experience with the amount of time spent implementing PA.
Preliminary discussions with respondents indicated sensitivity about PA and
determined that they were hesitant to reveal the requested information (Murphy, 2006).
This information emphasized development of qualitative grand tour questions rather
than more incisive quantitative questions (Werner and Schoepfle, 1987; Kerlinger,
1979). For example, to determine what position respondents held within a corporation,
they were asked a specific question (e.g. identify the department in which they worked)
and also asked a general question [e.g. identify in what area of the company they
worked by selecting one of four general areas of work concentration,
Manufacturing/Operations (M/O), Marketing/Sales (M/S), Research & Development
(R&D) or General Administration (GA), which includes Human Resources, Legal,
General Management]. For three questions, 44, 51 and 52, a five-point Likert format

was used to ascertain more quantifiable data, e.g. how PA helped PE manage more
effectively.
The instrument was tested during eight interviews with members of the five
corporations participating in the study during the fourth quarter of 2007. PE
respondents indicated that their responses remain anonymous and that sensitive areas,
such as their own performance ratings, be excluded. This required changes, such as the
changes for Questions 2 and 23, which originally asked for the PEs and employees
educational levels and academic institutions because identifying respondents
academic institutions could lead to their identity. Another example was not
identifying specific departments, such as Quality Assurance, in Question 7 for the PE
and Question 28 for the employee being rated. Instead, the four general areas of work
concentration were used (Table I).
The resulting instrument consisted of 54 questions and three domains:
(1) Information about the PEs and how they conducted PA (Q1-Q21 to include
questions about amount of time spent on PA, etc.);
(2) Information about the employees whose performance was being evaluated (Q22
Q39 to include questions about years of professional employment, etc.); and
(3) Outputs for the PEs and employees being evaluated (Q40-Q54 to include
questions about how the PA system helped the PE manage more effectively
(Q51) and how the PA system helped to meet employees expectations about
their performance (Q52)).
Given the heightened sensitivity of respondents, the research instrument was
implemented with each respondent by one of the authors during an hour-long
structured interview. The interviews were conducted between January and June 2008
with 54 managers, who routinely conduct PA, from five Fortune 100 companies
Aetna Life and Casualty (Aetna), International Business Machines (IBM), Johnson &
Johnson (includes employees from three different J&J companies, hereafter referred to
as J&J), Valspar Corporation (Valspar) and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Wyeth). All
interviewees gave permission for their responses to be included in the analyzable
database
After all the data were collected, responses that required coding for statistical
analysis were coded. Then, statistical analyses were completed using descriptive
statistics and decision-tree analyses.
Findings
Descriptive statistics
The 54 interviews of PEs from the five corporations were divided as follows:
Aetna 14, IBM 6, J&J 13, Valspar 12 and Wyeth 9. A total of 31 were men
and 23 were women. Education levels included six respondents with an Associate
Arts/Science (AA/S), 14 respondents with a Bachelor Arts/Science (BA/S), 18
respondents with a Master of Business Arts/Science (MBA/S), nine with a PhD (PhD),
one physician (MD) and six licensed Practical/Registered Nurses (LP/RN). They
worked in four areas of their respective corporations: M/S (21 respondents), R&D (21
respondents), M/O (three respondents) and GA (nine respondents). Race was
categorized as African/American or Black (B), American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI),
Asian/Pacific Islander (API), Hispanic (H), Other (O), Unknown (U) or white (W). Of the

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
45

JMD
29,1

46

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q35
Q36

Table I.
Structured interview
questionnaire

Q37

Gender of performance evaluator (PE)

Educational level of PE (AA/AS, LPN/RN, BA/BS, MA/MS, PhD, MD)
Race of PE [African/American or Black (B), American Indian/Alaskan native (AI), Asian/Pacific
Islander (API), Hispanic (H), Other (O), Unknown (U), White (W)]
Age range of PE (21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, .60)
Number of years PE is working professionally within industry
Number of years PE is with current corporation
PE business area (Marketing/Sales, Research and Development, Manufacturing/Operations,
General Admin.)
Number of people directly managed by PE (1-10, 11-20, 21-40, 50-100, . 100)
Budget range of PE ($1m-2m, $2m-5m, $5-8m, $ . 10m)
How frequently do you formally review employees performance? [annually (A), mid-year
review (AwMY), other (O)]
PE received PA training at current corporation, specifically about performance ratings
(yes-no)
PE has employees PA as one of his/her objectives (yes-no)
How much of your time does it take to do a PA for an employee?
PE helped set employees objectives for current PA period (yes-no)
PE helped set employees objectives toward meeting corporations key responsibility areas for
current PA period (yes-no)
PE helped set employees objectives toward meeting corporations personal competencies for
current PA period (yes-no)
PE helped set core values (e.g. integrity) for employees current PA period (yes-no)
PE solicited feedback about employees performance from employees peers
PE solicited feedback about employees performance from customers
PE helped to establish employees personal development/career plans
Has the type of PA system changed since you have been with the corporation/began your career?
If yes, how so?
Gender of employees being evaluated
Educational level of employees being evaluated (AA/AS, LPN/RN, BA/BS, MA/MS, PhD, MD)
Race of employees being evaluated [African/American or Black (B), American Indian/Alaskan
native (AI), Asian/Pacific Islander (API), Hispanic (H), Other (O), Unknown (U), White (W)]
Is range of employees being evaluated? (21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, .60)
Number of years employees are working professionally
Aware of number of years employee has been with current corporation (yes-no)
Employees business area (Marketing/Sales, Research and Development, Manufacturing/
Operations, General Admin.)
People managed by employees being evaluated
Budget range of employees being evaluated
Did employees receive PA training at current corporation, specifically about performance
ratings? (yes-no)
Were financial measurements included in the employees objectives for the current PA period?
(yes-no)
Is there one PA system being used by the corporation? (yes-no)
PE reviewed employees progress toward meeting current objectives with employees internal
peers (yes-no)
PE reviewed employees progress toward meeting current objectives from his/her own review
(yes-no)
PE reviewed employees progress toward meeting current objectives from external customers
(yes-no)
PE reviewed employees progress toward meeting key responsibility areas and core competencies
(yes-no)
(continued)

Q38 PE conducted employees PA during one-on-one sessions (yes-no)

Q39 Were employees asked to do a self-appraisal in preparation for their PA? (yes-no)
Q40 PE considered input from internal peers to rate employees progress toward meeting current
objectives (yes-no)
Q41 PE considered only his/her own judgment to rate employees progress toward meeting current
objectives (yes-no)
Q42 PE considered input from external customers to rate employees progress toward meeting current
objectives (yes-no)
Q43 Employees were recognized for their favorable annual performance rating; reward may be
greater responsibility (e.g. more budget), increased compensation or promotion (yes-no)
Q44 How were employees recognized for a favorable annual performance rating (favorable rating is a
4 or 5 on a 1-5 Likert scale)
Q45 PE determined employees progress on their key responsibility areas (yes-no)
Q46 PE created new or updated existing objectives for their key responsibility areas (yes-no)
Q47 PE determined employees progress on core competencies (yes-no)
Q48 PE created new or updated existing objectives for core competencies (yes-no)
Q49 PE determined progress on personal development/career plan (yes-no)
Q50 PE created new or updated existing personal development/career plan (yes-no)
Q51 Did PA help performance evaluator manage more effectively? (1-5, 5 high)
Q52 How well did the PA system help the PE meet employees expectations about their performance?
(1-5, 5 high)
Q53 PE identified her/his need for training on PA system by employee (yes-no)
Q54 PE identified need for employees training on PA system (yes-no)

respondents, 30 were W, ten were B, six were H and eight were A/PI. Respondents age
ranges were 21-30 (1), 31-40 (19), 41-50 (26), 51-60 (7) and 61-65 (1). PEs worked an
average of 19.1 years professionally and had an average of 14.4 years with the
corporations for which they were now working.
Respondents managed from one to ten employees (21), to 11-20 employees (10), to
21-40 employees (15) to 50-100 employees (8) with budgets of $1-2 million (18), $2-5
million (11), $5-8 million (16) and $8-10 million (9). All respondents assessed PA once a
year and provided informal feedback to employees about six months before the formal
PA. The vast majority (87 percent) received PA training at their corporation but none
had conducting employees PA as one of their primary objectives. A majority of PEs
helped employees set their objectives (85.2 percent). Albeit a majority of PEs solicited
feedback about employees performance from their peers (43 of 54 or 79.6 percent), over
20 percent did not. Even fewer PEs worked on career development plans for their
employees (68.5 percent).
Of the 54, 51 (92.3 percent) of the PEs managed both men and women of multiple
education levels, of multiple races and age ranges. Ten of the employees had only one
year of experience; the largest category contained 21 employees who worked between
1-20 years. Most of the PEs worked in M/S and R&D; 21 of 54 in each category. Over
half of the employees did not manage others within the organization (51.9 percent) and
almost half had no budget (44.4 percent). Encouragingly, the majority of employees
whose performance was rated received training on the PA process to include how
ratings were done (49 of 54 or 90.7 percent). As a continuation of training, 51 of the 54
PEs (94.4 percent) had their employees do a self-appraisal (Q39) and all employees
received interim feedback from their PE. Regarding their objectives, all but one
employee had financial metrics included in their annual objectives.

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
47

Table I.

JMD
29,1

48

The output of PA yielded results consistent with the input. All PEs recognized
favorable PA ratings. Recognition ranged from merit to salary increase (50 percent), to
greater responsibility if performance was sustained over two years (20.4 percent), to
merit increase plus opportunity to participate in development programs (9.3 percent),
to merit increase plus greater responsibility (20.4 percent). There were no instances
when PEs created new objectives for their employees key responsibility areas. For
personal development, 55.6 percent created new or updated existing plans.
Decision trees analyses
Decision trees are a popular statistical data mining technique for classification. Generally
speaking, a decision tree model consists of a set of rules for dividing a large
heterogeneous population into smaller, more homogenous groups with respect to a
particular target variable. Thus with our particular database, we first used Q51, how
well PA helped managers manage more effectively, as our target variable. This provided
some interesting results. First as can be seen in Figure 2, the response to Q51 was 3.54
where the following Likert gradations were observed: 1 not at all, 2 not much,
3 somewhat, 4 quite a lot and 5 very much. There were no 1 ratings and only
three ratings of 2. Ratings of 3 (27), 4 (16) and 5 (8) weighted the average. The first
significant split of the decision-tree (Education Level of Performance Evaluator) found
that 40 of the 54 respondents had an educational level at or above the AA/AS level with a
mean of 3.38 (to Q51) or slightly less than the overall mean. When the remaining 14 were
further split against the age range of the PE, nine were older than 40 and had a high
average of 4.44 while the other five were younger than 41 with a lower average of 3.20. So
PEs who found that PA helped them to manage more effectively were those at or above
the AA/AS educational level and more mature (ages between 50-65).
Another decision-tree analysis using how PA helped the PE meet employees
expectations about their performance (Q52) as the target variable started with a mean
of 3.54, the same as the mean for Q51. Again, there were no 1 ratings or ratings which
indicated no help from the PA system and only one rating of 2. The average was

Figure 2.
Did performance appraisal
help performance
evaluators manage more
effectively?

weighted by 30 ratings of 3, 16 of 4 and seven of 5. The first significant split

identified that M/S was the area of the company whose employees benefited most
(Q7 PE Business Area); 21 of the 54 respondents were from M/S and had a mean of
3.76. This is interesting because there were also 21 respondents from R&D along with
nine from GA and four from M/O. The next significant split was on the remaining 33
and based on Q3 (Race of PE). Of the non-M/S people, 24 of these 33 have a race of B or
W and have the same average as the overall average for Q52 (3.54). B and W
represented the majority (40 of 54) of the PEs; 30 were W and 10 were B. On the other
hand, nine of these 33, with a race of H or A/PI, had a significantly lower average for
Q52 (3.00 v. 3.54) as depicted in Figure 3.
The last decision tree used the amount of time spent by PEs to conduct PA (Q13) as
the target variable. Overall, the average was 3.19 hours. The first split was on Q25 (Age
Range of Employees Being Evaluated). Of the employees being evaluated, 12 were in the
21-39 age range and had a much higher average of 4.75 hours. Meanwhile, the remaining
42 were older and had a low average of 2.74. Next, splitting on the 42 older employees
(Q28 Employees Business Area) yielded higher levels of education with seven of the
PEs generating a very low average of 1.86 hours. The other 35 employees with education
levels of MD, PhD and lesser degrees took longer but were still low; 2.91 hours vs 1.86
hours. Then, the 35 employees who solicited feedback about their employees from the
employees peers (Q18) revealed that the 30 who solicited feedback from employees had
an average of 3.03 while those who did not had an average of 2.20. So, as shown in
Figure 4, ranking the longest to shortest amounts of time to conduct PA is as follows:
.
young employees 4.75 hours;
.
overall average 3.19 hours;
.
older employees, with lower education and did solicit feedback 3.03 hours;
.
older employees, with lower education and did not solicit feedback 2.20 hours;
and
.
older employees with higher education 1.86 hours.

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
49

Figure 3.
Did performance appraisal
help performance
evaluators meet
employees expectations
better?

JMD
29,1

50

Figure 4.
Did time to implement
performance appraisal by
performance evaluators
make a difference?

Discussion
Similar PE backgrounds and PA systems
There were no remarkable differences among PEs and employees at the five
corporations for educational levels, distribution of race and age range as well as
professional experience. Furthermore, across the corporations, over half of the employees
had neither direct reports nor budgets for their respective job levels. An interesting
difference contrary to conventional wisdom that experience matters was the low level of
experience. Ten of the employees had only one year of experience and one of the largest
company areas, M/S, contained 21 employees who worked between one and 20 years.
All five corporations adopted and supported the use of a 360-degree feedback PA
system that was implemented on an annual basis with a mid-year check. Within each
corporation, a substantial majority of PEs and employees (87 percent) received training
about their PA system and PEs helped their employees set objectives (85.2 percent),
which, in all but one case, included financial metrics. Over 94 percent of PEs required
their employees to conduct a self-appraisal
Whom did PA help manage more effectively?
Results indicated it was PEs who had educational levels at or above AA/AS and who
were more mature with ages ranging between 50-65. This was consistent with
qualitative observations during the structured interviews. Additionally, age seemed to
bring confidence, especially when a mature PE was a relatively new hire but already
had vesting from another corporation.
How did PA help PEs meet employees expectations about their performance?
M/S was the area within all five corporations that benefited most. This is illuminating
because M/S employees have extensive experience dealing with employees working

remotely based on volunteered comments during interviews. M/S respondents were

more guarded with their responses compared to PEs in other areas of corporations,
which is not surprising because cutbacks are often aimed at sales forces. Interestingly,
when race was considered in the same analysis, employees who were B and W
demonstrated the most satisfaction as reported by PEs while Hs and A/PIs had the
least satisfaction. This suggests an alignment by race between the PE and employee.
Three-fourths of the PEs are Bs and Ws (40 of 54) and 30 of the 40 PEs are W.
What are the outputs of PA?
Similarity among the corporations was again observed. All PEs recognized favorable
PA ratings comparably, e.g. merit and salary increase (50 percent) to greater
responsibility with or without salary increase (40.8 percent). Moreover, there were no
instances when PEs created any new objectives for employees key responsibility
areas. For personal development, about two-thirds (68.5 percent) of PEs worked on
career development plans for their employees but only about half of employees created
new or updated existing plans.
What prevented PA from making a more positive impact?
One possibility is that, while a majority of PEs solicited feedback about employees
performance from employees peers (43 of 54 or 79.6 percent), over 20 percent did not.
Another is that not a single PE had conducting employees PA as one of their
objectives, which can make it difficult to sequester time necessary to conduct PA.
Either has the potential to instigate ethical situations.
Another possibility is the time taken to implement PA. With time as a proxy for
successful PA implementation, the results are quite interesting. Younger employees
spent considerable time, almost five hours compared to an overall average of just over
three hours, were less confident and exhibited more concern about maintaining
employment. Older PEs with lower educational levels who solicited feedback from
employees peers, took just over three hours. Older employees with lower educational
levels, who did not solicit feedback, only took about two hours to conduct PA and were
impatient during interviews. Finally, older PEs with higher education took less than
two hours. When it came to summarizing an employees PA and communicating it to
them, older PEs with higher education levels regarded PA as a check-the-box
exercise. This is certainly not the way to develop employees.
Concluding remarks/implications for further research
PEs with more education and maturity believed PA helped them manage more
effectively. However looking at the time they spent to conduct PA, it raises some
ethical concerns, particularly for those managers who are older with higher education
levels. They are usually in positions of greater responsibility within the corporation
and have greater influence on employees careers. Its very concerning when 20 percent
of these PEs are not soliciting feedback about an employees performance from their
peers. This is not only inconsistent with parameters of 360-degree PA, but also
suggests a lack of concern about employees development.
Furthermore, the results suggest that it is important to understand the implications
of race on PA, principally those races with a lower representation within corporations,
e.g. H and A/PIs. It would be interesting to compare PA systems cross-culturally

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
51

JMD
29,1

52

consistent with research that emphasizes the cultural differences between the US and
non-western cultures like the Pacific Rim countries where there is more focus on group
performance rather than individual performance (Hofstede, 1993). Understanding this
from the perspective A/PI managers could suggest how to modify the PA process to be
consistent with the values of those cultures.
Other areas for future research are further evaluating training for PEs and
assessing senior managements implementation of PA. To learn more about how PEs
are being trained to deal with employees working remotely, discussions with training
mangers and PEs from M/S in industries currently facing this situation would provide
valuable information. To determine how senior management endorses PA, learning
their expectations for PA could provide insights about their support for PA and go a
long way toward avoiding ethical concerns about a PA system during its
implementation.
This studys findings recommend the practical application of requiring assessment
of PA as a specific annual objective instead of a job-description task, especially for PEs,
to ensure it gets the time needed to implement it. The findings also infer that, while a
consistently implemented PA system helps to avoid unequal treatment and/or unfair
discrimination among diverse employees, there is room to improve the way the diverse
employees within a corporation experience PA. Unless we link development that is
beneficial to the employee to achieving objectives that are beneficial to the corporation,
US corporations may be reverting back to where they were a century ago.
References
Averson, P. (2002), The Ethics Perspective, The Balanced Scorecard Institute, Washington, DC.
Axline, L. (1996), The ethics of performance appraisal, SAM Advanced Management Council,
Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 44-7.
Banner, D. and Cooke, R. (1984), Ethical dilemmas in performance appraisal, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 3, pp. 327-33.
Beatty, R. (1989), Competitive human resource advantage through strategic management and
performance, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 12, pp. 179-94.
Becker, T. and Klimoski, R. (1989), A field study of the relationship between organizational
feedback environment and performance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 343-58.
Bernardin, J., Dahmus, S. and Redmon, G. (1993), Attitudes of first-line supervisors toward
subordinate appraisals, Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos 2-3, pp. 315-24.
Borman, W. (1991), Job behavior, performance and effectiveness, in Dunnette, M.D. and
Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2,
pp. 271-326.
Bowman, T. (1999), Performance appraisal: verisimilitude trumps veracity, Public Personnel
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 557-76.
Buchner, T. (2007), Performance management theory: a look from the performers perspective
with implications for HRD, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 59-73.
Campbell, D. and Lee, C. (1988), Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: development versus
evaluation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 302-14.
Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, E. and Weick, K. (1970), Behavior, Performance, and
Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Caproni, P. (2005), The Practical Load: Management Skills for Everyday Life, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Carayon, P. (1993), Effect of electronic performance monitoring on job design and worker
stress, Human Factors, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 385-96.
Cascio, W. (1991), Applied Psychology in Personnel Management, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Cascio, W. (1998), Managing Human Resources, 5th ed., Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Cyr, R. (1993), Seven steps to better performance appraisals, Training & Development, Vol. 47
No. 1, p. 18.
DeLucca, D. (2008), Performance appraisal for at-will employees, Personal Interviews, July 8-9.
DeVellis, R. (1991), Scale Development Theory and Applications, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
Dorfman, P., Stephan, W. and Loveland, J. (1986), Performance appraisal behaviors: supervisor
perceptions and subordinate reactions, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 579-97.
Eyes, E. (1993), Realignment ties pay to performance, Personnel Journal (USA), Vol. 72 No. 1,
pp. 74-8.
Garavan, T. and Morley, M. (1997), 360 degree feedback: its role in employee development,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 134-48.
Grint, K. (1993), Whats wrong with performance assessment?, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 61-78.
Hartel, C. (1993), Rating format revisited, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 212-17.
Hofstede, G. (1993), Cultural constraints in management theories, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-94.
Juran, J. (2004), Architect of Quality, CWL McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2006), Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate
Synergies, Harvard Business School Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Kerlinger, F. (1979), Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Approach, Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
New York, NY.
Kerr, S. and Sherman, S. (1995), Stretch goals: the dark side of asking for miracles, Fortune,
November 13, p. 31.
Kerssens-van Drongelen, C. and Fisscher, O. (2003), Ethical dilemma in performance
measurement, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45 No. 1, p. 51.
Longenecker, C. and Ludwig, D. (1990), Ethical dilemma in performance appraisal revisited,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 12, pp. 961-70.
Longenecker, C., Sims, H. and Gioia, D. (1987), Behind the mask: politics of employee appraisal,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 183-93.
McEvoy, G. and Buller, P. (1987), User acceptance of peer appraisals in trial setting, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 785-97.
Murphy, N. (2006), Our survey says: well-designed questionnaires are essential when
developing competencies, Competency & Emotional Intelligence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 30-4.
Nathan, B. and Cascio, W. (1986), Technical and legal standards for performance assessment,
in Berk, R. (Ed.), Performance Assessment: Methods & Applications, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Newton, L. and Schmidt, D. (2004), Wake-Up Call, Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
53

JMD
29,1

54

Pringle, C. and Longenecker, J. (1982), The ethics of MBO, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 7, pp. 305-12.
Pulakos, E. (1986), The development of training programs to increase accuracy with different
rating tasks, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 38, pp. 76-91.
Randle, K. (1997), Rewarding failure: operating a performance-related pay system in
pharmaceutical research, Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 187-200.
Reilly, R., Smither, J. and Vasibopoulos, N. (1996), A longitudinal upward feedback, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 599-612.
Sanchez, J. and DeLaTorre, P. (1996), A second look at the relationship between rating and
behavioral accuracy in performance appraisal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81,
pp. 3-10.
Scholtes, P. (1993), Total quality or performance appraisal? Choose one, National Productivity
Review (USA), Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 349-64.
Spicer, D.P. and Rusli, A. (2006), Cognitive processing models in performance appraisal:
evidence from the Malaysian education system, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 214-30.
Sumer, H.C. and Knight, P.A. (1996), Assimilation and contrast effects in performance ratings:
effects of rating the previous performance on rating subsequent performance, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 436-42.
Thornton, G.C. and Zorich, S. (1980), Training to improve observer accuracy, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 351-4.
Tornow, W. (1993), Special issue on 360 degree feedback, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 32 Nos 2/3, pp. 211-19.
Wayne, S.J. and Liden, R.C. (1995), Effects of impression management on performance ratings:
a longitudinal study, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 232-60.
Weiss, J.W. (2003), Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach,
Thomson/Southwestern, Mason, OH.
Werner, O. and Schoepfle, G. (1987), Systematic Fieldwork: 1, Foundations of Ethnography and
Interviewing, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Winstanley, N.B. (1980), Legal and ethical issues in performance appraisals, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 58 No. 6, p. 186.
Winstanley, N.B. (1996), Personal performance: the ethics of performance management,
Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 6, p. 66.
Yammarino, F. and Atwater, L. (1997), Do managers see themselves as others see them?,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 35-44.
About the authors
George P. Sillup, PhD, MS, is an Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmaceutical Marketing
and Fellow, Pedro Arrupe Center for Business Ethics at Saint Josephs Universitys Haub School
of Business. Prior to joining the full-time faculty at Saint Josephs University in 2004, He worked
in the pharmaceutical/medical device industry for 28 years, where he held various positions from
salesman to COO in major corporations like Johnson & Johnson as well as in start-up businesses,
in which he sold products, attained reimbursement coverage with US and international
authorities for new technologies and launched several new medical device/pharmaceutical
businesses into global markets. For the past 12 years, he has been on several boards of directors.
He is establishing a presence in the peer-reviewed literature largely based on his keen interest in
business ethics. Most recently, he and a colleague have analyzed data supporting their fourth

annual update about newspaper coverage of ethical issues facing the pharmaceutical industry in
the pharmaceutical industrys trade publication, Pharmaceutical Executive, to develop an article,
which has been published in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical & Healthcare
Marketing.
Ronald K. Klimberg, PhD, MS, is a Professor in the Decision and System Sciences Department
at Saint Josephs University Haub School of Business. Before joining the faculty of Saint Josephs
University in 1997, he was a professor at Boston University (ten years), an operations research
analyst for the Food and Drug Administration (ten years) and a consultant (seven years). He was
the 2007 recipient of the Tengelmann Award for his excellence in scholarship, teaching, and
research. His research has been directed toward the development and application of quantitative
methods, e.g. statistics, forecasting, data mining, and management science techniques, such that
the results add value to the organization and are effectively communicated. He has published
over 30 articles and made over 30 presentations at national and international conferences in the
areas of management science, information systems, statistics, and operations management. His
current major interests include multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), multiple objective
linear programming (MOLP), data envelopment analysis (DEA), facility location, data
visualization, risk analysis, workforce scheduling, and modeling in general. He is currently a
member of INFORMS, DSI, and MCDM. Ronald K. Klimberg is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: klimberg@sju.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Ethics of
implementing
PA systems
55