Academy of Management Journal 1978, Vol. 21, No. 4, 646-658.

The Nature of Subordinate Participation in the Appraisal Interview^

MARTIN M. GRELLER Rohrer, Hibler, and Replogle, Inc.

To clarify the concept of participation in the appraisal interview, 287 bank employees were surveyed. Analysis of their descriptions of the most recent appraisal interview resulted in three factors: (1) a sense of ownership of the appraisal, (2) feelings of contribution, and f3) criticism from the boss. Ownership was the factor most strongly related to subordinates' reaction to the appraisal; it was also found to be the factor most closely linked to overall management style and was moderated by job tenure. The basic findings were confirmed in a second study using a different organization. The results are discussed in terms of participation as it applies to the appraisal interview. There is general agreement that subordinate participation can be a valuable part of an appraisal interview (McGregor, 1957; Meyer, Kay, & French, 1965; Wexley, Singh, & Yukl, 1973). Yet, despite the agreement, there is still no clear and inclusive definition of what constitutes "participation" in the context of the appraisal interview. Research on participation in the appraisal interview has shown its effects to be somewhat tenuous. Participation has been shown to be less effective for younger workers than older ones (Hillery & Wexley, 1974) and less effective than other strategies such as goal setting (Ronan, Latham, & Kinne, 1973). One interpretation of such results is that participation serves different functions in these different situations. However, other research has shown that conventional representations of participation in the appraisal
Martin M. Greller is a consultant with Rohrer. Hibler. and Reptogle. Inc., New York, N.Y. 1 This research was partly funded by a grant from New York University's Schools of Business Research Fund. The author would like lo thank John Wanous, Hrach Bedrosian, and Peter Dubno for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. A partial report of the first study was presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, Washington, D. C , May 13-15, 1976. 646

1978

Grelter

647

interview decompose into several facets which differ in their relationships to satisfaction and motivation (Greller, 1975). An unexamined possibility is that the different facets of participation serve different functions within an appraisal interview, in which case the moderation found in the Hillery and Ronan studies may be an artifact of the facets of participation studied. There is also some question as to how much volitional control a manager actually has over the amount of participation that occurs in an appraisal interview. French, Kay, and Meyer (1966) found that even when managers agreed in advance to run a participative or nonparticipative appraisal interview, it was quite difficult for them to act in opposition to their basic tendencies toward subordinate participation. Other work has suggested that the most potent facets of participatioti in the appraisal interview are also those most apt to be related to overall management style (Greller, 1975; Nemeroff & Wexley, 1977). The purpose of the present study is to inductively identify the factors representing the different types of participation that may be experienced in the appraisal interview. Once such factors have been identified, they are studied to see if they are associated with appraisal outcomes and if that association differs for the different factors. Finally, the factors of participation are examined to see if variables known to affect participation (e.g., job tenure, goal setting, and supervisor's management style) have the same impact across all factors.
STUDY 1METHODOLOGY Sample

Questionnaires were collected from 317 employees in both trust and operations areas of a large urban commercial bank. Because some people within the sample had not been appraised within the last year or failed to answer one or more questions about the nature of the appraisal interview, 287 replies (90.5 percent) were used for the present study. The study was coordinated through the bank's organizational development and training departments. Questionnaires were administered at several locations within the bank during working hours. Administrations of the questionnaire were supervised by either the author or a member of the bank's organizational development department. The bank was operating under an appraisal system inspired by management by objectives (MBO), however actual practice varied widely within the bank.
Characteristics of the Appraisal

In the first section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate a series of statements on how well each described their most recent appraisal interview. Starting with the items used in previous research (Greller, 1975; Wexley et al, 1973), the author worked with the bank's staff to produce a broad range of statements to describe the appraisal interview. Included

^^

Academy of Management Journal

December

among these were 19 items designed to illustrate various kinds of participation and three items dealing with the valence (positive or negative) of the supervisor's evaluation of the subordinate. Statements about the most recent appraisal interview were rated on a seven-point scale with end points labelled "(1) does not describe it all all" to "(7) describes it extremely well." Both participation and valence items were subjected to factor analysis and are presented in Table 1. Two other characteristics of the appraisal were measured in this part of the questionnaire. The first, goal setting, indicates the degree to which goals were set during the appraisal: "Specific objectives were set," "I obtained a better idea of what I should be doing in my job," "The boss and I reviewed the goals of my job," and "I left with a clear idea of the criteria of good performance." Goal setting has an interitem reliability of ,60. Second, two items with reliability of .66 were used to assess the use of goals which had been set previously as criteria for the appraisal: "The appraisal was not based on previously set goals," and "My performance of previously set goals was reviewed." The use of goals measure was included to account for the unevenness in application and use of the objectives set in conjunction with the bank's MBO program. Reaction to the Appraisal Reaction to the appraisal was measured in four ways, expanding the measures used in earlier research (Greller, 1975; Wexley et al., 1973). Perceived utility' was measured by four items: "The appraisal helped me learn how I can do my job better." "I learned a lot from the appraisal," "The appraisal helped me understand my mistakes," and "I have a clearer idea of what the boss expects from me because of the appraisal." Utility has interitem reliability of .87. Satisfaction with the appraisal was comprised of three items: "I was satisfied with the review," "I feel good about the way the appraisal was conducted," and "There are many ways in which I would have liked the appraisal to be different." The last item was reverse coded, resulting in a measure with interitem reliability of .81. Anxiety during the appraisal interview was measured by four items: "The review made me angry," "The interview was upsetting," and "I was tense during the review," all positively coded, and "I was at ease during most of the review." reverse coded. Interitem reliability for the anxiety measure was estimated to be .76. Finally, four items were used to measure derogation of the appraisal by the individual: "The boss really did not have enough information about my performance," "The boss overlooked important parts of my past performance," "The boss seemed too emotional," and "The appraisal seemed arbitrary." The reliability was .67. All of the reaction items were rated on a four-point scale: "(0) I do not feel this way at all, not at all," "(1) I feel somewhat like this, a little," "(2) I feel generally like this, pretty much," and "(3) I feel exactly this way, completely."

1978

Greller

649

Manager^s Style Three traditional leader attributes were assessed. Consideration and initiation of structure were measured using the items which loaded most heavily across all three samples in Szilagyi and Sims' (1974) study. Eight items were used to measure consideration; four were positive instances: "The boss stands up for us even if it makes him/her unpopular," "The boss is easy to understand," "The boss expresses appreciation when one of us does a good job," and "The boss tries to keep those employed under him/ her in good standing with those higher in authority." Four negative items were reverse coded, "The boss treats people without consideration for their feelings." "The boss changes subordinates' duties without first talking it over with them," "The boss criticizes subordinates in front of others," and "The boss refuses to explain his/her actions." The interitem rehability for consideration is .78. Six items, with a reliability of .69, were used to measure initiation of structure, "The boss rules with an iron hand," "The boss talks about how much should be done," "The boss emphasizes the quantity of work," "The boss criticizes poor work," "The boss 'needles' subordinates for greater effort." and "The boss insists that subordinates follow standard ways of doing things in every detail." The third leadership measure was hierarchical influence, measuring the degree to which the subordinate perceives the supervisor as having control over organizational rewards and resources (Comrey, Pfiffner, & High, 1954; Harold, 1974; Wigdor, 1969). The measure had an interitem reliability of .61 for this sample. Job tenure was measured by the number of months the participant reported being in his or her present position. RESULTS Factorial Representation A principal components analysis with estimates of communalities in the diagonals and VARIMAX rotation was used to identify the most reasonable way of reducing the 19 participation items and the three dealing with valence of evaluation. The primary criteria were (a) that clear, discernible factors result which (b) could be interpreted and (c) could be replicated. The sample was divided in half to allow a demonstration of replicability. These criteria were best met by a three-factor solution. The solution presented in Table 1 identifies two types of participation and one indication of the valence of the appraisal. Interpretations are based on items which load clearly and highly on the same factor in both subsamples. The factor labelled ownership emerged first in subsample T and second in the other subsample. The items loading on this factor are descriptive of what the review was like and indicate an acceptance of responsibility by the subordinate. The subordinates indicated that their thoughts were welcomed and that those topics which they felt required attention were ad-

650

Academy of Management Journal

O Tt in O O O C O M

December

'.O

r--

ij-i

<i-i

rj

Hi

II

o o o o on

IJ
ifi u-1 >c 00 oo O O r-t < O (N N

" t St

1978

Greller

651

dressed. The subordinates also indicated that their work was praised by the boss. The next factor, contributions, focuses more on actions or effects. The individual makes suggestions or senses that there was an impact on the boss. Influence can be on future assignments, goals, or the actual content of the appraisal interview itself. A central emphasis of contributions is the subordinate's being the source of influence (e.g., items 6 and 8 ) : for ownership, the question of who causes issues to be addressed is irrelevant (e.g., item 4). The third factor is composed of two items reflecting criticism of the subordinate's performance. Apparently, fault finding is independent of the two types of participation; it is also not simply the opposite of praise. The most obvious form of participation, who did most of the talking, does not load on any of the three factors. This is consistent with previous work which suggests that what one talks about in an appraisal is more important than how much time one spends saying it (Greller, 1975; NemerofE & Wexley, 1977). Effects of Participation Having identified three factors which represent participation in the appraisal interview and the valence of evaluation, the next question is what effect do these have on reaction to the appraisal? To examine this question, those items which clearly loaded on a factor for both subsamples were given a unit weight and averaged to produce the individual's score for that factor. Unit weighting provides a stable model (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1975), and in this case, the alternative of using factor scores would be misleading as the scores would be based on two different analyses, one for each of the subsamples. The regression of the three characteristics on each of the four reactions is presented in Table 2. Each of the models has a significant multiple correlation and in each the relationship is a function of ownership and criticism. TABLE 2 Standardized Beta Weights for Eacli of the Three Appraisal Characteristics Regressed on Each of the Appraisal Reactions for the Bank Sample
Appraisal Characteristic Reaction Utility Satisfaction Anxiety Derogation * P < .05 ** p < .01 * * * p < .001

R
43*** '.5&*** .31*** .52***

Contribution .09 -.08 .04 .23

Ownership .38*** .52*** -.23** -.48***

Criticism .15* -.22** .18* .19**

652

Academy of Management Journal

December

Ownership is associated with greater satisfaction and perceived usefulness and with lower levels of anxiety and derogation. Unexpectedly, criticism is positively related to perceived usefulness. The independent effect of subordinate contributions is not significant. To examine the robustness of these findings, goal setting and use of goals were forced into the regression equations. In only one instance did this result in a significant change of R. The model for utility accounts for 12.9 percent more variance when the two additional measures are included. T'he independent effects of ownership and criticism cease to be significant in this expanded regression on utility; the only significant weight is the one associated with the use of previously set objective (b = .53, f = 33.35, p < .001). The setting of goals is associated with greater satisfaction (b = .17, F = 4.25,p < .05) and less anxiety (b = .22,F- 5.08, p < .05); however these do not improve the models significantly, nor do they produce substantial change in the weights of the other variable. Relationship to Leader Characteristics Table 3 presents correlations which support the notion that appraisal style is related to management style. Two findings are of particular interest. First, ownership, which was shown to have the strongest relationship to appraisal reactions, has the highest correlations with both consideration and hierarchical influence. Second, criticism is not significantly associated with reduction in the amount of influence attributed to the supervisor, a distortion which would reduce the risk attendant upon criticism from a powerful supervisor. Moderating Effects of Job Tenure The sample was trichotomized based on the individual's job tenure, taking those with the longest job tenure (in excess of 39 months) and those with the least tenure (less than 24 months)- as separate subsamples. Regressions of the appraisal factors on each of the appraisal reactions were computed separately for long and short-tenure employees. The difference in beta weights was then tested. There were no significant differences between senior and junior employees in the models for perceived utility or anxiety. In the model for satisfaction, ownership is more strongly associated with satisfaction for older workers than for younger ones (t 1.68, p < .05). This result is consistent with the Hillery and Wexley finding, however, it is the only instance in which job tenure moderates the effects of participation.
. ^^.' '.^ ^^'^ 1 question whether the criteria used to divide the sample really produced "junior" and "senior" groups. The rcsulls are fairly stable wiih regard to the exact placement of the dividing line. For example, the relevant correlations are approximately the same regardless of whether "juniors" are defined as those with less than two years, less than one year, or half a year's experience on the job. However, the size of the sample drops substantially.

1978

Greller

653

TABLE 3 Correlations Between Appraisal Characteristics

Supervisor Characteristic Appraisal Characteristics ContribuUon Ownership Criticism * P < .01 **p<.001 Consideration (n = 265) ^S** .46** -.22** Structure (n = 262) ^6 03 ^9 Influence (n = 280) ^6^ .24** --OS

The effects of criticism are moderated by job tenure in two instances. Junior workers showed a greater propensity to become dissatisfied in the face of criticism (t 1.95, p <.O5) and to derogate the appraisal (t = 2.06, p <.O5). These findings run contrary to the suggestion of Maier (1973) that junior workers will be more inclined to accept criticism. This finding may be explained by the alternate sources of information available to the experienced worker (Greller & Herold, 1975). The effects of both the setting and use of goals in the appraisal are moderated by job tenure. The setting of goals is correlated with satisfaction for those with long job tenure but not for the junior people (z = 2.76), and the relationship of goal setting to the feeling that the appraisal was useful is reduced for those with less time on the job (z 2.15). Use of previously set goals in the appraisal results in greater satisfaction and less derogation by the experienced workers but not for the newer employees (z = 2.24 and z = 2.07 respectively). The moderation by job tenure is not explained by differences in the management of senior workers. The correlations between job tenure and leader characteristics were all nonsignificant (.02 with consideration, .06 with structure, and .02 with hierarchical influence). Work orientation did not differ as a function of job tenure (r = .02) based on Blood's (1969) measure. The only factors found to vary with tenure were the employees' age and willingness to remain in their present job, more senior workers being more apt to state that they would be satisfied to remain in their present job for the duration of their career (r = .23,/i <.OO1). Consistent with the reasoning of Hillery and Wexley (1974), an individual new at the job, with aspirations of mobility, may require different things from an appraisal interview than one who has held the job longer and expects to remain in it. However, this difference was reflected more in the reactions to goal setting and use than to participation. STUDY 2METHODOLOGY The results of the first study challenge some of the simpler prescriptions that have been provided managers on the best way to run an appraisal

654

Academy of Management Journal

December

interview. Since one may be tempted to discount the results as unique to the particular sample or the banking industry, it is important to corroborate the basic findings. To provide such verification a second study was conducted in a quite different organization using the factors identified in the first study. A small engineering R & D firm situated in a rural area was revising its appraisal procedures and practices. The firm had been using an appraisal form resembling the Oflicer Fitness Reports but were unsatisfied as the evaluations were either meaninglessly high or else managers felt they were committing themselves to unwarranted criticism of the subordinate. Further, both managers and subordinates viewed the appraisal review as an event which should primarily promote developmental discussions, a purpose not well served by the existing procedures. Questionnaires concerning the appraisal were collected from 31 employees (everyone in the organization who had been appraised and was at work during the period of administration). The data of concern here are the measures of appraisal characteristics and reactions to the appraisal, which are the same as used in the bank. The reliabilities were as follows: ownership (.65), contribution (.58), criticism (.24), goal setting (.75), goal use (.68), anxiety (.74), derogation (.58), satisfaction (.76), and utility (.79). The low interitem reliability for criticism is distressing, however, in the context of the particular organization it does make sense. Difficulty with criticism was one of the factors that led the firm to consider revising its appraisal procedure. The distinction between being "quite critical" and "viewing performance as less than satisfactory"' (items used in the criticism measure) was one to which every member of this organization was sensitive at the time of the study.
RESULTS

Table 4 contains the standardized beta weights for the three appraisal characteristics regressed on each of the four appraisal reactions. The results are similar to those for the bank (Table 2) with several exceptions. The weak relationships previously identified with anxiety now drop below the 5 percent level of significance, reflecting the difference in sample size. The effect of criticism, significant in the analysis for the bank, is no longer substantial. Whether this diminution is due to a substantive difference in the nature of criticism between the two organizations or simply reflects the lack of stability in the measure for the R & D sample cannot be determined. Another difference between the samples is that here the goal setting and goal use measures do not render the effects of ownership nonsignificant when forced into the regression on utility. Goal setting was still associated with greater satisfaction (b = .54, F = 5.68, p <.O5.). But overall, goals played a less important role in the R & D sample. The difference may be due to goals having no special place in the R & D firm's personnel or management procedures.

1978

Greller

655

TABLE 4 Sfnadardized Beta Weights for the Three Appraisal Characteristics Regressed on the Appraisal Reactions for the R & D Sample
Appraisal Reaction Appraisal Characteristic R Contribution Ownership Criticism

Utility Satisfaction Anxiety Derogation * p < .001

^6 .66 .36 J2

^4^ U -.15 ^5

^3* .70* -.19 81*

^7 .02 .21 -0^

Despite the radical difference between the two research sites, the basic finding was replicated. Contributions were found to be less strongly associated with positive appraisal outcomes than was ownership, even where the effects of criticism and goal setting were controlled. DISCUSSION The most striking finding is that those measures of appraisal behavior which are most specific and most closely match the actions prescribed for managers have the least effect. Specific behaviors are so loosely linked to each other that they neither produce an independent factor nor load on factors with other descriptions of the appraisal interview. As a consequence, it seems unlikely that simplistic changes of manager behavior in the interview would help. If neither simple behaviors nor influence by the subordinate (as reflected in contributions) predict favorable outcome in the appraisal interview, what does? Just what sort of a construct is "ownership"? It may not be far removed from what others have labelled "psychological participation" (e.g., Wexley et al., 1973), for ownership involves being welcomed and feeling that what needed to be done was done. The notion of meeting needs would imply that the effectiveness of a manager's behavior can only be judged relative to the needs with which the subordinate enters the situation. There is no guarantee that the same behaviors will produce a sense of ownership across subordinates in all situations. An important task for future research is to examine the interaction of situational and interpersonal variables as they affect ownership. The variables dealing with goal setting and use in the appraisal interview were included to check the robustness of the participation findings. While ownership was little affected by these measures, goal setting was consistently associated with satisfaction. In addition, the use of goals in the evaluation was associated with both utility and satisfaction in the bank, an organization which emphasized goal setting. Future work on the appraisal interview should take care to consider the interaction of goal variables with participation and other contextual factors.

^^^

Academy of Management Journal

December

Admittedly, the results of the present study ought to be viewed with some caution. All the data were gathered through questionnaires administered to people who had previously been appraised, thus, the results may be subject to response-response bias. While such bias cannot be completely discounted, there is evidence to suggest that the effects of any such bias are limited. Response-response bias is manifested through uniformly positive or negative reactions to the appraisal and supervisor. Such a bias could explain the correlation of ownership with reaction to the appraisal or with supervisor consideration. Yet, if such a bias were at work, it is hard to explain why contributions were not similarly biased. To be consistent with the hypothesis of such bias, many of the items which did not load on any of the factors should have, being appraisal behaviors frequently associated with "good," participative, or enlightened management. In addition, some of the findings are directly opposite of those expected from response-response bias: the positive relation of criticism with usefulness and the failure of subordinates to denigrate the supervisor's power in the face of criticism. Additional support for the results is found in the work of Nemeroff and Wexley (1977), who obtained similar results using both supervisor and subordinate ratings of the appraisal interview. Before departing from the parsimony of a simpler view of participation m the appraisal interview, at least two conditions must be met. First, there should be consistent evidence that the simpler view is not sufficient. Second, the new perspective should be able to incorporate those findings which have previously been used to support the view that participation, simply conceived, can produce effective appraisal interviews. Is There Consistent Evidence? Across a variety of organizations, using a number of approaches, similar results have been found. Using accounting and data processing managers from a utility company and savings bank employees (primarily from branches), Greller (1975) found that traditional measures of participation in the appraisal interview were not unitary and were often more closely associated with global satisfaction measures than with measures of attitude toward the appraisal. The relationship between participation and attitude toward the appraisal was strongest for the least behavioral facets of participation. These results are supported by the two studies reported here using a broader sample of items and a different sample of respondents (employees m the back offices of a commercial bank and an R & D firm). Using a different approach, Nemeroff and Wexley (1977) started by postulating five dimensions of appraisal behavior. Mental hygiene therapy aids and the aids' supervisors were asked to describe their most recent appraisal and their reactions to it. The dimension of appraisal behavior most closely linked with salutary appraisal outcomes was "supervisor supportiveness in the appraisal," which among their measures is the least anchored by

1978

Greller

657

Specific behaviors and the one which most closely approximates ownership. These results obtained using both supervisor and subordinate ratings. Reexamination of Earlier Studies Saying that simple "participative" behaviors are not related to positive appraisal outcomes seems to disagree with earlier research. Yet, a closer reading of the literature which led to the expectation that participation has a simple and straightforward effect shows that the relationship is neither simple nor straightforward. For example, even in the widely cited instance of the General Electric studies (Meyer, Kay, & French, 1965), the results were subject to qualification. Participation was found to be effective when presenting a "low threat" (positive) evaluation where the manager was customarily participative; when participation was used in a "high threat" (critical) review with a manager who was not usually participative, the effects were negative (French, Kay, & Meyer, 1966). Unlike the present studies, French and associates used independent raters to observe how participative the interviews were. These raters observed participative behavior, even in those interviews where its effect was adverse, leading to the conclusion that participation failed to have its effect under adverse circumstances. The results of the present studies suggest another interpretation; perhaps participation did not occur. The observers recorded behaviors associated with participation, but they did not report "ownership." It is hard to imagine ownership existing in the appraisal interview where the manager behaves in a manner inconsistent with his customary management style while delivering a critical appraisal. A second example is the experimental study of Wexley et al. (1973) in which participative appraisal interview strategies were found to improve the outcome of the appraisal. A review of the way in which participation was operationalized suggests that much more than behavioral participation changed across conditions. Consider the description of their high participative condition (Wexley et al., 1973, p. 55), ". . . non-directive, open-ended questions to encourage the subordinate to express his ideas and feelings about solutions to problems." Mutual goal setting was also included as a part of this treatment. A possible consequence of this treatment is to begin building a relationship between the two previously unacquainted participants, which minimizes threat, creates a sense of acceptance, limits direct criticism, and conveys a sense of caring and consideration. Tn addition to providing the subject an opportunity for self expression, the high participation condition seems to foster the kind of relationship associated with ownership of the appraisal. CONCLUSIONS The key factor associated with positive results from an appraisal interview is the creation of a sense of ownership or psychological participation.

"^

Academy of Management Journal

December

Certainly, this does not invalidate earlier work, but it does help to explain the sporadic impact of participative behaviors in the appraisal interview. An important question is what contingencies affect whether particular participative behaviors result in psychological participation. One factor that seems to be important is the function the appraisal interview serves for the subordinate. A second, not necessarily unrelated, concern is where this particular encounter fits into the larger context of manager-subordinate interaction. To understand participation in the appraisal interview, future research must be directed toward the role of the appraisal in the individual's relationship to the job, manager, and firm.
REFERENCES
1. Blood. M. R. "Work Values and Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 2. Comrey, A. L., J. Pffifner. and W. S. High. Factors Influencing Organizational Effectiveness (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1954). 3. Einhom, H. I., and R. M. Hogarth. "Unit Weighting Schemes for Decision Making." Orgiinizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol. 13 (1975), 171-192 4. French, J. R. P., E. Kay. and H. H. Meyer. "Participation and the Appraisal System " Human Relations, Vol. 19 (1966). 3-20. 5. Greller, M. M. "Subordinate Participation and Reaction to the Appraisal Interview" Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 60 (1975), 544-549. 6. Greller. M, M., and D. M. Herold. "Sources of Feedback; A Preliminary Investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol. 13 (1975). 244-256 7. Herold, D. M. "Interaction of Subordinate and Leader Characteristics' in Moderating the Consideration-Satisfaction Relationship," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 8. Hillery, J. M.. and K. N. Wexley. "Participation in Appraisal Interviews Conducted m a Training Situation," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974), 168-171. 9. Maier. N. R. F. Psychology in Industrial Organizations (Boston: Hough ton-Miffin 1973) 10. McGregor, D. "An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal," Harvard Business Review Vol. 34, No. 3 (1957), 89-94. 11. Meyer, H. H.. E. Kay, and J. R. P. French "Split Roles in Performance Appraisal," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1965), 123-129. 12. Nemeroff. W. F., and K. N. Wexley. "Relationship Between Performance Appraisal Characteristics and Interview Outcomes as Perceived by Supervisors and Subordinates." Proceedings of the Academy of Management (1977), pp 30-34 13. Ronan. W. E.. G. P. Latham, and S. B. Kinne. "Effects of Goal Setting and Supervision on Worker Behavior m an Industrial Situation," Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 58 14. Szilagyi, A. D., and H. P. Sims. "Cross-sample Stability of the Supervisory Behavior Description Qwestionnaire" Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 59(1974) 767-770 15. Wexley, K, N., J. P, Singh, and G. A. Yukl. "Subordinate Personalily as a Moderator of Effects of Participation in Three Types of Appraisal Interviews." Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58 (1973). 54-59. 16. Wigdor, L. Effectiveness of Various Management and Organizational Characteristics on Employee Satisfaction and Performance as a Function of Employees Need for Independence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bernard M. Baruch Colleee Citv University of New York, 1969).