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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

Evaluate
Managers’ motivation to evaluate subordinate
subordinate performance performance
Sylvie St-Onge
Department of Management, HEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada 273
Denis Morin
Department of Management and Human Resources,
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montreal, Canada, and
Mario Bellehumeur and Francine Dupuis
HEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to focus on one of the most frequently cited problems with respect to the
performance management process: the prevalence of performance appraisal distortion.
Design/methodology/approach – Through semi-structured interviews with managers, this paper
attempts to answer the following question: Which factors influence managers’ motivation to distort the
performance evaluation ratings of their subordinates?
Findings – This paper offers three main contributions or implications. First, from a methodological
point of view, using a qualitative research design to investigate the appraisal of subordinates’
performance is useful because it allows us to reduce the gap between research and practice. Second,
this study shows that researchers must embrace or integrate various theoretical perspectives (rational,
affective, political, strategic, cultural, justice, and symbolic), given that managers’ motivation to
evaluate subordinate performance cannot be analyzed outside of the social context. Third, from a
practical point of view, managers’ motivation to evaluate subordinate performance is less about the
technique used and more about leadership support, execution, and overall performance culture.
Originality/value – To date, prior research has focused on improving performance appraisal
accuracy through experimental research design by emphasizing rating criteria, rater errors, rater
training, and the various rating methods. Despite extensive research, very little progress has been
made toward improving rater accuracy.
Keywords Motivation (psychology), Performance appraisal, Performance management, Managers
Paper type Research paper

Dissatisfaction with performance management has been around for many years (Bretz
et al., 1992). A survey of 50,000 respondents reveals that only 13 percent of employees
and supervisors and only 6 percent of executives consider their firm’s performance
appraisal process useful (People IQ, 2005). Another survey shows that almost
50 percent of executives consider their performance appraisal process to be “more or
less” effective, while 15 percent consider it “little to not” effective at all (Mercer, 2002).
Similarly, a recent survey indicates that close to 60 percent of the participants rate their
organization a “C” or worse on the effectiveness of their performance management
Qualitative Research in Organizations
(WorldatWork and Sibson Consulting, 2007). and Management: An International
This paper focuses on one of the most frequently cited problems in the performance Journal
Vol. 4 No. 3, 2009
management process: the prevalence of performance rating distortion (Bernardin and pp. 273-293
Villanova, 1986; Bretz et al., 1992; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). So far, most prior q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648
research has focused on ways to reduce inaccuracy in performance ratings. DOI 10.1108/17465640911002545
QROM These approaches usually include evaluation forms which provide an exhaustive
4,3 description of the behaviours to observe and evaluate. They also include training
programs intended to improve raters’ skills with regards to accumulating, coding and
integrating performance-related information. Despite extensive research into these
issues, there has been very little progress toward improving rater accuracy (Ilgen et al.,
1993; Maroney and Buckley, 1992; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). In contrast, Newman
274 et al. (2004) conclude that, despite 30 years of research, no evidence substantiates the
underlying hypothesis or belief that the reliability and accuracy of appraisal ratings
depends upon which rating format is used. In fact, the choice of a performance appraisal
format has only a minor effect on the accuracy of performance ratings (Borman, 1991;
Bretz et al., 1992; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). Spencer and Keeping (2005) also criticize the
research that focuses on rater ability and comprehension of the cognitive processes
underlying rating behaviour for not having contributed much toward solving problems
of rating distortion and leniency in practice. Finally, all efforts to train raters are usually
disappointing, as the effects of rater training on appraisal accuracy dissipate over time
(Cleveland and Murphy, 1992; Latham, 1986, 1988).
Many researchers agree that on the whole, prior research fails to pay attention to rater
motivation and the organizational context in which appraisals occur (Dipboye, 1985;
Murphy and Cleveland, 1995; Wood and Marshall, 2008). This study attempts to
overcome this limitation by investigating behavioural, social and affective components
in order to get a more realistic picture of the context surrounding the performance
appraisal process. More precisely, this study addresses the following research question:
Which contextual characteristics influence managers’ motivation to distort the
performance evaluation ratings of their subordinates? Acquiring a better understanding
of manager motivation to accurately evaluate their subordinates is quite important,
given that top managers invest considerable financial, material, and human resources
when developing and managing their performance appraisal system and training their
managers with respect to it. Moreover, many authors have called for more research on
the rating context and rater motivation determinants on rating outcomes (Levy and
Williams, 2004; Spencer and Keeping, 2005; Tziner et al., 2005). The absence of field
research on voluntary distortion of performance ratings may be explained by the fact it
is difficult to enlist the cooperation of managers on a topic associated with an
organizational sanction or one potentially biased by a social desirability factor (Morin
et al., 1999).

Methods
This field study innovates by adopting an interview-based qualitative approach when
examining managers’ discourse related to the performance appraisal process. In our
study, we conducted in-depth interviews with a subsample of 15 out of 85 students
enrolled in an MBA program at a North American university who had completed a
questionnaire on performance management. This subsample was composed of members
of the two extreme groups who claimed to be either not at all motivated or very
motivated in conducting employee performance appraisals. This subsample of
15 students who express two opposite attitudes toward performance appraisals
constitutes one of the strengths of our study in that the aim was to analyze their
determinants. Given the explanatory nature of this study, the number of 15 participants
appears sufficient to analyze the variety of perceptions. Moreover, the fact that the
participants work for different companies and were interviewed outside their workplace Evaluate
encouraged frankness and openness while reducing the risk of bias related to social subordinate
desirability.
It is important to observe that all respondents had at least two years of experience in a performance
managerial position in which they had evaluated the performance of at least one
employee. With a median age of 34, the managers had, on average, six years of
experience in their organization, including three years in their current job position. 275
Typically, participants supervised five employees and had conducted performance
evaluations for four years. Of the 15 participating managers, six were male and nine
were female respondents and they worked for organizations of various sizes: two
worked in organizations with between one and 99 employees, three in companies with
between 100 and 249 employees, two in firms with between 250 and 999 employees and,
finally, eight in companies with over 1,000 employees.
Each semi-structured interview (with participants) lasted an average of one hour
and was tape-recorded for future transcription. The interviews focused on factors
affecting participant motivation and the motivation of other managers to evaluate their
subordinates’ performance. The interviews also addressed matters of motivation:
What could be done to increase or decrease their own motivation or that of their
colleagues in order to carefully evaluate their subordinates’ performance?
All interview transcripts were subjected to a systematic ethnographic content
analysis (using ETHNOGRAPHtm software) to assist us in organizing, searching, and
sorting coded data. Ethnographic content analysis is characterized by the reflective
and interactive nature of the investigator, concepts, data collection, and analysis.
While variables, established prior to the analysis and compiled and categorized by the
researchers merely guide the study, other categories were expected to emerge from the
data (Altheide, 1987; Manning and Cullum-Swan, 1994). Data was analyzed using a
process of “reduction” and “interpretation.” Text lines from each interview were
numbered and two co-researchers independently reviewed all transcripts.
Transcripts were then identified and split into segments representing topic-units.
Concurrently, these co-researchers also identified each segment with appropriate
“established” or “emerging” codes. Once the initial coding task was completed, all
segments of text addressing the same topic were grouped and labelled by a key word
or expression that captured the underlying issue. Such labelling was based on a
consensus agreement among the researchers. For each quote, the code and line number
were then entered into ETHNOGRAPHe. Moreover, categories, and links between
and among particular concepts were identified in the analysis (Silverman, 1993;
Tesch, 1993).

Results analysis and discussion

Our categories of results are presented on the basis of six major perspectives that have
been put forward over the years within the performance appraisal literature and that
emerged from our data analyses. Table I maps the main theoretical perspectives with
respect to performance management that can be retained to summarize managers’
opinions and answers. When interrogated on the determinants of their motivation to
evaluate employees’ performance at work, managers express opinions that can be
associated with each of these perspectives: psychometric, affective, political, strategic,
cultural, justice, and symbolic.
QROM
Perspective Assumptions Implications
4,3
Rational and The appraisal system is a Accuracy is the main criterion for
psychometric measurement system. True or assessing the effectiveness of
objective levels of individual appraisal practices and it is
performance exist and these levels considered the primary goal that
276 can be subjectively assessed, albeit both practitioners and researchers
with errors are trying to achieve
Raters are passive judges who (a) There is a need to improve appraisal
have no particular intention or methods and raters’ competencies in
personal agendas and (b) have order to improve performance rating
fallible capabilities to encode, store, accuracy
recall and assess employees’ Individual performance standards
performance should be clearly defined using a
Inaccurate performance ratings have careful and systematic approach
negative impacts on employees’ work which relies heavily on job analysis
motivation, efforts, job satisfaction, data, aversion to traits and
perception of justice, etc. promotion of behavioural appraisal
Accurate appraisal ratings are useful
not only for performance management
but also for many human resource
activities (i.e. validating selection
procedures, training and development,
salary increases, layoffs, termination,
feedback)
Affective “Hot cognitions” such as affection, Rated performance is not only the
trust, emotions, mood and result of more positive leader-
personality traits significantly member exchange, but the perceived
influence performance ratings and performance may contribute in
other performance management determining the quality of that
actions (i.e. training, rewards) exchange
Affection is a basis for determining
in-group and out-group membership
which affects both performance
judgments and raters’ attributions
Affection develops as a result of
employees’ past performance rather
than functioning solely as a
determinant of performance ratings
Political Power is the property of social The question is whether political
relationships and work appraisal manipulations can be
environments. Individuals are self- tolerated or controlled. When
interested rationalists who use power performance appraisal politics are
to get control of scarce resources consistent with organizational goals
Appraisal is a goal-oriented activity and contribute to effectiveness, they
where actors look to maximize should be considered adaptive.
benefits over costs, given the context Political strategies that enhance the
and agenda identification of excellent performers
Table I. Raters’ intent is often not to make or motivate employees to improve
Mapping the main accurate assessments of ratee their performance benefit the
theoretical perspectives performance, but to actively pursue organization. Trying to eliminate
in relation to performance their own goals appraisal politics may be negative if
management (continued)
Perspective Assumptions
Contextual, strategic Performance management is broader
and cultural in scope and explicitly links business
strategy and organizational values to
individual performance
Performance management is key to
ensuring organizations keep their
edge by focusing efforts on high-
value behaviours and outcomes that
execute strategy
Organizational capabilities – those
that underlie an organization’s
ability to execute business strategies
– can be created and enhanced by
carefully constructing performance
dimensions and effectiveness
criteria, while refocusing them as
business strategies change over time
Organizational justice The focus of appraisal should not be
on measurement, but rather on the
extent to which performance
procedures and outcomes are seen as
just, consistent or appropriate
Perceived organizational justice is
important in all three interrelated
processes of performance
management: first, system
development; second, appraisal
processes; and finally, feedback
processes
Perceptions of fairness arise from
evaluations of the outcomes received
(distributive or outcome fairness), the They also reduce grievances and
procedures used to determine those
outcomes (procedural fairness), and
the way in which decision-making
procedures were implemented and
explained (interpersonal or
informational fairness)
Institutional or Individuals seek legitimacy and
symbolic conformity to external norms or
Implications
Evaluate
subordinate
appraisal politics have developed
into an effort to accomplish
performance
organizational goals in spite of
poorly designed, rigid or ineffective
appraisal systems 277
Top management should use the
performance management system to
communicate those behaviours and
outcomes needed to drive critical
business success. They should also
shift the emphasis onto behaviours
and outcomes from year to year by
revising the performance standards
It is important to change the view of
performance appraisal from an
emphasis on measurement to an
emphasis on content and
communication
The performance management
system is a critical tool that is
necessary to increase awareness of
the value of employee contributions
to the organization’s success. It is
also needed to create a dialogue
between employees and managers,
which can enhance employee
contributions and a firm’s success
Issues relevant to fairness and due
process are the most salient factors in
judicial decisions, whereas more
scientific issues of validation and
types of rating instruments were
virtually ignored
Employees will be more motivated to
improve their performance when the
rating process is perceived as fair
Fair appraisal processes and
outcomes have many positive
impacts: namely, increased trust in
supervisors, commitment to the
organization and job satisfaction.
turnover, etc.
Procedural and interpersonal
fairness are particularly important
when evaluations and decisions (i.e.:
outcomes) are negative
Organizations mimic the actions of
other organizations when adopting
(continued) Table I.
QROM Perspective Assumptions
4,3
ways of doing things, and they
manage impressions so they appear
rational and efficient
Institutional and mimetic pressures
278 (e.g. laws, standards, regulations)
lead organizations to adopt similar
management practices over time
The focus of appraisal is on
management of meaning rather than
measurement. Raters attempt to
manage the meaning of ratee
performance and the meaning of
consequent evaluations. They do this
through feedback and organizational
outcomes associated with appraisal
Typically, ratee performance is a
fuzzy or ambiguous construct subject
to interpretation: What is valued
more or less depends upon
Table I. individuals and contexts
Implications
performance management systems
because they look like a rational tool
used to increase firm performance
Executives uncertain about the
appropriate response to pressures
related to their performance
management systems benchmark
with other firms, particularly those
perceived to be more legitimate or
successful
All actors should regard the
employee performance management
systems as being equitable and
justified. However, the presumed
positive impact of performance
evaluation systems on firm
performance is a question of
impression management

Psychometric perspective
As shown in Table I, a psychometric perspective presumes performance appraisal is a
rational, neutral, and passive process whereby managers seek to objectively measure
the performance of their subordinates. According to this perspective, if there is bias or
errors in performance ratings, it is mainly because supervisors are either not trained to
allocate them or do not have the appropriate appraisal tools. A psychometric
perspective insists on training and methods. In our study, many managers’ remarks
reflect this perspective.
For example, several participants claim that the lack of competencies and
interpersonal relations skills – mostly in terms of giving negative feedback –
decreases supervisors’ motivation to evaluate their subordinates’ performance. As one
manager put it:
It’s surprising we are not taught how to evaluate well [. . .] they were not given the tools to do
it properly. It is important to [. . .] choose your words properly when you evaluate someone.
There are many ways to tell someone that they are rotten, that there is room for improvement.
Similarly, another said:
You have to find the right way to say things. As much as possible, you shouldn’t avoid
problems out of fear of hurting the other person, but rather find a way to broach the problem.
Clearly, there is no problem communicating good and fine things or talking about people’s
good sides. Talking about bad aspects creates problems even though it is important to talk
about it and you have to take the time to find words to say it.
In addition, many participants consider performance evaluation forms and methods to
be a source of frustration because of their length, irrelevance, the redundancy of certain
criteria, etc. Several managers believe that the performance evaluation method to be Evaluate
too heavy or too complex and that it leads to errors, bias and manipulation of subordinate
performance ratings. For example, one manager said:
performance
It is difficult to complete a three-page form where you have to evaluate [performance] relative
to objectives that should have been specified. Planning work objectives for the following year
and completing another form that covers the development plan of the employee for the next
12 months, not to mention that you need to follow up this exercise in mid-year, is far too 279
demanding. The system is bloated.
Similarly, another participant said:
The performance evaluation form is almost 30 pages long. It asks the same questions for all
employees, regardless of their duties or position. The form is unsatisfactory [. . .] For example,
they talk about dress code, appearance, stuff that shocked people very much.
Participants seem to prefer a method based on the determination of performance
objectives or on the observation of critical incidents, which permits them to compile
information on employee performance easily and regularly throughout the year. As
expressed by one manager: “I find it motivating to use the famous loose-leaf sheets on
which you can regularly jot down something and put it in the employee’s file.” Finally,
some managers complained about the fact that they are forced to play with their
ratings to satisfy a particular predetermined distribution:
It bothers me to have to allocate our employees. [. . .] I have 20 employees and a chart with
25 squares. My employees have to cluster in the four squares in the centre for the average
rating to be good.

Affective perspective
As summarized in Table I, according to this perspective, affective and emotional
factors cannot be ignored because they affect performance rating accuracy (Cardy and
Dobbins, 1986; Lefkowitz, 2000; Tsui and Barry, 1986; Judge and Ferris, 1993). For
example, the “supervisor-subordinate” exchange theory postulates that the supervisor
develops distinct work relations with each subordinate; each “supervisor-subordinate”
dyad corresponds to an interpersonal interaction style likely to influence performance
rating accuracy (Liden and Graen, 1980).
In this study, one manager had this to say:
When an employee is good, he will be liked a little better for sure, and it is more motivating to
evaluate him. You tend to put this employee on a pedestal. I try to control it but I can’t say
that it doesn’t influence me.
It also seems more difficult to give negative feedback or even to intervene in cases
where employees have personal problems and managers might be more likely to avoid
them. In such a case, as one manager put it: “[. . .] it is difficult to sit down face to face
with an employee and deal with the tears, personal problems, and with all the little
family squabbles [. . .].” Another said:
At times, I had to give extremely negative feedback that could have encouraged me not to be
as open. However, if you look at the long-term results, I think it’s preferable to lance the boil.
I don’t want the problem to fester, I prefer to tackle it immediately and give a lot of
feedback [. . .]
QROM Many of the managers confirm that supervisors’ feelings towards their subordinates
4,3 invariably influence the evaluation ratings: the better the quality of the
supervisor-subordinate relationship, the higher the performance rating given to the
target employee. For example, as one participant reported:
Some people have become my friends and it is not much fun to tell them: “Listen, what you
are doing annoys me. This has to change or we’ll have to do something about it.” These
280 things are very emotional. It is difficult to be rational in performance evaluations.
Inversely, a conflictual relationship might prompt undervaluation of the performance
ratings. As one manager asserted:
When you have been working in a company for a while, there are games that are played and
some people are antagonistic towards you because they have given you low blows for years.
You are then less inclined to try to help them.

Political perspective
As summarized in Table I, the political perspective implies that the employee
performance appraisal process is a deliberate attempt by managers to satisfy either
their personal interests or goals or those of their department and/or subordinates
(Cleveland and Murphy, 1992; Harris, 1994; Longenecker et al., 1987; Murphy and
Cleveland, 1995; Murphy et al., 2004; Wong and Kwong, 2007).
In our study, manager discourse confirms the important role of the rater’s objectives
in the performance evaluation process. These objectives can be oriented toward
maintaining or improving subordinate motivation and performance, maintaining a
good work climate, safeguarding subordinates’ interests or attaining personal goals
and retaining and expelling employees.
For example, all respondents say they strive to maintain or increase their
subordinates’ motivation at work when evaluating their performance. One manager
said: “I like saying to someone: ‘You are doing a good job [. . .].’ I prefer to be diplomatic. I
try in particular to avoid sapping an employee’s motivation.” Many managers report
that this objective can lead them to overvalue ratings issued to their subordinates by
emphasizing the positive aspects of their performance, maximizing rewards or
considering employee progress. As expressed by one respondent:
The annual evaluation reflects a complete year. But if you met the employee six months ago
to discuss a problem and he then solved it by correcting his behaviour or attitude [. . .] At the
end of the year managers do not want to return to the subject and report again on the first few
months that were not very good.
Analyses of manager interviews also reveal that their quest to maintain or improve the
quality of working relations within their team may influence performance appraisal.
Some supervisors say they find it difficult to distinguish between professional and
personal relations. For example, managers who maintain good relations with employees
report that they are less inclined to evaluate and provide feedback on their performance.
Some supervisors even try to defend the interests of their subordinates when
evaluating their performance. In other words, they try to optimize the rewards for
employees or minimize the negative consequences of the appraisal. As one of the
managers put it: “We are ready to tell them verbally, but we won’t write bad things
because we know it will be inserted in the file.” The desire to maximize rewards,
particularly salary increases, also justifies managers’ overvaluation of their employees’ Evaluate
performance ratings. One manager pointed out how the allocation of bonuses can lead subordinate
them to be inaccurate:
performance
There are performance bonuses, but they are limited and cannot be given to everyone.
Relative to the group average, one person may stand out, but as there are many groups on
the evaluation board, the best person in a group may not be the best when you compare
that person to the overall average. All the managers then try to put their employees first 281
and it becomes a real exercise in confrontation, combined with an auction or a slave
market.
Another respondent painted a similar picture with regard to the merit pay
environment:
[. . .] when we evaluate employees and we find them good, we will weigh our words carefully
before giving them a lower rating [. . .]. We don’t want this to penalize the employee when it’s
time for a raise. As salaries are low, the employee needs an increase.
Some respondents report that they take into account the impact their performance
evaluations have on their own image with top managers. In their view, executives tend
to see the performance ratings they allocate to their subordinates as a reflection of their
own performance as a manager. As one participant claimed:
Some managers have the impression that it’s their job that is seen through the evaluations
they give. They are afraid to show that they are unable to manage their personnel or to show
that something is going wrong with their personnel.
Therefore, they have an incentive to give good ratings if they want to be perceived as
good leaders who are deserving of promotions and/or pay incentives. According to one
manager:
As a manager of a group of very efficient people, my evaluation should be good and my
reputation should be good. If my group performs better, I can improve my chances of getting
a promotion.
Finally, according to some respondents, the desire to keep good performers within the
department by overvaluing their performance and to encourage problem employees to
leave by undervaluing their appraisals can also explain rating distortion. As one
respondent explained:
I don’t want to lose the good employees. And if they do good work, I will not deliberately
depict them as a superstar so that I won’t lose them. On the other hand, at times I have wanted
to get rid of an employee so I gave someone a better evaluation so they would move to another
group, and I could pass my problem along to another manager.

Contextual, strategic and cultural perspectives

As stated in Table I, from a contextual perspective, the ultimate objective of a
performance appraisal system is to facilitate the implementation of the organizational
strategy, to support organizational values and to improve organizational
performance through the convergence of individual and team performances
(Schneier et al., 1991).
In our study, many respondents were dismayed by the lack of alignment and
harmony between performance evaluation activities and those related to organizational
QROM objectives, strategy, and values. Some claimed that it is difficult to mobilize their
4,3 subordinates because they do not know the company’s success factors. For example:
We don’t know where we are situated in the company; this can considerably sap managers’
motivation to evaluate their employees. They are unable to motivate their team because they
themselves don’t know where they’re at in the company.

282 Participants also emphasized the impact multiple transformations and corporate
reorganization have on their motivation to evaluate employees and on the time they
have to evaluate an increasing number of subordinates. For example, mergers and
acquisitions may have a negative impact on the accuracy of performance appraisals:
There were problems of integration following a merger three or four years ago [. . .] I recognize
the people that were there before the merger [. . .] Although I ask them to do the same thing as
the others, I will probably be slightly more tolerant.
Moreover, when managers are required to supervise an increasing number of employees
due to successive downsizings of hierarchical levels, it becomes a real challenge for them
to find the time to appraise their employees’ individual performances with sufficient
care. As one manager explained: “With the levelling of structures, managers must
manage more employees, files, and operations. [. . .] Managers have less time to manage
their personnel and they follow up less often.” Another participant expressed a similar
opinion:
[. . .] with downsizing, supervisors have many responsibilities to bear, and making a good
performance evaluation takes time. In times of crisis and reorganization, it is difficult to ask
people to invest themselves in their evaluations.
According to the respondents, the more importance top executives place on personnel
management, the more they provide concrete support for performance management
processes and the more clearly they communicate the business objectives, the more
managers are motivated to evaluate the performance of their subordinates. From a
manager’s point of view:
Here, supervisors are motivated to do employee performance evaluations well because they
have a lot to gain. [. . .] They try to have an open-door management style and transparency.
Executives meet with employees periodically to explain to them why they have made such
and such a decision.
Another respondent offered the opposite perspective:
One year ago, they tried to implement a performance evaluation system but it didn’t work
because the owners did not see the need for it. [. . .] We didn’t have the support of top
management.
Moreover, the hierarchical supervisor acts as a role model and has a predominant effect
on a manager’s motivation to evaluate. As expressed by one participant: “ Most of my
colleagues do not pay attention to performance evaluations. My supervisor does not
even evaluate my own performance. There’s a type of ‘I don’t care’ culture.” Similarly,
another respondent said:
If several managers report to you, you have to begin by evaluating the performance of your
own managers before conveying to them that it is important to evaluate their employees’
performance.
Procedural justice perspective Evaluate
As described in Table I, this perspective asserts that a performance appraisal process subordinate
should value employees and aim to treat them with dignity and fairness (Folger et al., 1992).
In our study, many respondents seemed more concerned about whether the ratings performance
were accepted and perceived as accurate and fair, as opposed to solely worrying about
their accuracy. Some managers believe that clear and predetermined criteria are important
in order not only to be fair, but also to facilitate the performance evaluation task: 283
If your objectives are clearly determined and accurate, this reduces subjectivity. [. . .] You are
able to say to someone “look what you’re doing” or “look what you did,” and to tell them
whether they did it at 75 percent or at 125 percent. “It makes our work much easier. The
criterion is already clearly defined. There is an appendix to the form that defines and gives
examples of each criterion.”
Overall, participants believe it is more equitable to give evaluations on an ongoing
basis. As one participant said:
You have to perform evaluations regularly or at least a few times during the year [. . .] not just
at the end of the year. If you need to realign, it gives the employee a chance to change some
habits or improve in certain areas to achieve results.
In addition, it seems that participation in the development and implementation of the
performance appraisal system motivates managers to rate performance. This approach
allows managers to better assume their role as rater and coach; appraisal accuracy
should improve accordingly. As one manager put it:
I find it very frustrating when I have to apply a performance management system that was
developed without my input and that is totally unrelated or irrelevant to the reality that I have to
manage.

Institutional or symbolic perspective

According to institutional or symbolic theory, firms respond to environmental
pressures by endorsing commonly accepted ways of doing business (Meyer and
Rowan, 1977). As indicated in Table I, such a perspective defines performance
evaluation as a rationalized institutional myth in which the presumed positive impact
of performance evaluation systems on firm performance can be considered a question
of impression management (Pfeffer, 1981; Villanova and Bernardin, 1989).
In this study, many managers claimed they did not see the value or importance of
attentively completing the performance evaluations of their employees. They do so in
order to appear legitimate in the eyes of investors and stakeholders. As expressed by
one participant: “The employee performance evaluation is like a chore, like something
you have to do just to follow the rules and meet the standards.” Some participants
explained that they had better things to do than repeatedly tell their employees the
same things that they would invariably ignore. “You just have to restart the tape, they
will continue to do any old thing and work any old way.”
The value of employee performance evaluations seems to be particularly
questionable for managers of unionized personnel. One manager said:
Here, we have collective agreements and job security and if an employee does not want to
improve, they can just sit back and let a lot of time go by before something serious enough
happens that you can toss the person out.
QROM Similarly, another said:
4,3 If you work with unionized employees and they feel that you are discriminating against them
or that you have ranked them as inferior within the group, you will be blacklisted [. . .] That’s
one reason managers are not motivated to evaluate performance.
Other respondents question the real value or importance of evaluating the performance
284 of their employees if human resource specialists do not follow up and do not seem to
take ratings into account. As one participant put it:
I am motivated to do evaluations if I know something will come of it. If it’s just to put things
into the file, I won’t make the time. And that’s not what I want.
While another one said:
The human resources department staff does not seem to perform enough follow-up. They say
it’s important and you have to follow the policy. But when they do not follow up on things,
they contradict themselves. I wonder if my evaluations actually end up in the files and if
anyone considers them important. This discourages me.
Several participants claimed that the absence of rewards or punishments associated
with precise performance evaluations can lead to distorted performance ratings. One
participant put it this way:
There is no reward or positive feed-back associated with evaluations. We must do it because
it is part of our obligations, but it is not like doing a particular project. [. . .] However, I never
saw anyone receive additional compensation for having done better performance evaluations.
It goes unrecognized.
Another participant said:
You are motivated to do something when you get something in return: joy, money or some
kind of gratification. For a manager, what is the gratification associated with evaluating
employee performance?
According to them, if the organization were to make raters accountable for the quality
of their evaluations, their motivation to evaluate accurately would increase. For
example, one manager claimed:
Doing employee performance evaluations is not something that is very visible. [. . .]. You do
the evaluation and you never get feed-back on the evaluations [. . .] If they took into account
the quality of my evaluations of my subordinates in my own evaluation, it would be
incredibly motivating.
Another reported:
My evaluations were always re-evaluated by my immediate supervisor [. . .]. It motivates you
to prepare your file well, that’s for sure. As evaluations are attached to the employees’ files in
the human resources department, this encourages us to evaluate well.
These remarks are consistent with findings showing that organizations rarely adopt
concrete actions to reward accurate appraisal or to punish those who distort
evaluations (Napier and Latham, 1986; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995).
Finally, supervisors who value performance evaluation believe it helps employees
to improve their performance and, ultimately, the organization’s results. As expressed
by one respondent:
 Performance evaluations can help determine the guidelines and objectives for someone. They Evaluate
also let you have a discussion with an employee put in writing. Performance evaluations
should be used for this: to ensure employees provide a more satisfactory performance in order subordinate
to attain the company’s objectives. performance

Study’s contributions and implications

This study offers the following three main contributions from a methodological, 285
theoretical, and practical point of view.
Methodological contributions: qualitative studies contribute to reduce the gap between
research and practice in performance appraisal management. Many authors have
highlighted the gaps between research and practice when it comes to performance
appraisal management, as well as the sterility and disappointing results of prior
research efforts, mostly all obtained from lab experiments (Banks and Murphy, 1985;
Bretz et al., 1992; Maroney and Buckley, 1992). According to them, laboratory
experiment results are not applicable to organizational settings for many reasons; they
eliminate or control the contextual factors (e.g. time pressure to evaluate, time between
behaviour observation and appraisal) that raters require to rate in the absence of any
real context. Similarly, lab experiments strive to create a controlled and neutral
environment, neglecting to consider the numerous emotional and political issues (e.g.
interdependency, daily or interpersonal relationships between rater and ratees,
self-interest). In addition, experiments concentrate on the analysis of raters’ private
ratings (often on video), while managers in a firm are regularly required to
communicate their ratings to others (employees, supervisors, human resource
professional). In fact, performance ratings provided in cognitive experiments are
typically inconsequential to raters themselves, or anyone else for that matter, which is
not at all the case in a real work setting. In addition, laboratory studies often limit the
nature of the information transmitted to raters on relevant issues. Meanwhile, in a real
organizational setting, they need to distinguish irrelevant data from relevant data
concerning employee performance. Finally, many lab or survey studies are conducted
to investigate the impact of supervisors’ mood or traits, or even the quality of their
relationships with their subordinates on the performance appraisal process. However,
their external validity is often low, since they also manipulate performance levels
easily and neglect many of the important issues that characterize real work settings,
such as the interdependency between actors, the future superiorysubordinate
relationship, the interpersonal impacts of performance appraisal and so on. The
laboratory setting would seem particularly unsuited for a study such as ours, aimed at
identifying raters’ goals and motives in performance appraisal, or demonstrating their
importance for appraisals, because many of these goals and motives grow out of needs
to manage work groups over time and depend upon strong feelings about ratees and the
organization. None of these conditions is usually present in a lab study (DeNisi, 1996).
This field study innovated not only by interrogating managers or raters themselves,
but also by doing so using an interview-based qualitative approach rather than a
questionnaire. To date, very little research has adopted such a qualitative design with
respect to performance appraisals. One exception is Longenecker et al. (1987), who
found that appraisal ratings are highly affected by the desire to please employees and
avoid conflict and by the need to orient future behaviour. In doing so, our results
allowed us to tap a wealth of information relevant to the appraisal context, particularly
QROM from the agents who actively apply the appraisal process, i.e. the managers themselves,
4,3 who were willing to report their motives, goals, thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.
Lindlof (1995, p. 234) summarizes this orientation here: “If we want to know how
something is done and what it means, we have to know how it is talked about.” In line
with the structuration perspective (Gidden, 1984), our results provide insight into
the way managers construct reality and the significance they give to the performance
286 appraisal program within their organization.
In summary, the methodological contributions of our study can be seen in light of
the lack of published qualitative work (Marchel and Owens, 2007) and given that the
sharp intensification of qualitative research in psychology that took place in the 1990s
(Rennie et al., 2002) thus far does not seem to have been observed in performance
appraisal research. Our study thus responds to recent calls for more qualitative
research in the OB domain which can be sensitive to the full range of contextual levers
(and their interactions) and sensitive to the full range of behaviours and attitudes that
context might affect, often working backwards to make inferences about the situation
(Johns, 2006). Our investigation departed from conventional questionnaire
methodology or the lab study approach by employing qualitative research in order
to give the practitioners an opportunity to share their understanding and views of the
appraisal process. Our results, by highlighting the urge influence of the social context
of performance appraisal, confirmed that qualitative research of this type is critical in
order to further our understanding of rater decision processes and reduce the current
gap between research and practice in performance appraisal.
Theoretical contribution: researchers must embrace or integrate various theoretical
perspectives (rational, affective, political, strategic, cultural, justice, and symbolic) given
that managers’ motivation to evaluate subordinate performance cannot be analyzed
outside of the social context. As previously mentioned, up to this point in the history of
performance appraisal research, the majority of work undertaken has clearly
concentrated either on issues of rating formats/scales or cognitive errors.
Consequently, in much research on performance appraisal, researchers have ignored
the social context in which various rating scales are applied. Moreover, in most studies,
scholars seem to assume that managers want to provide conventionally accurate
ratings, desire no other outcomes, and have no other goals in making ratings, all of
which are dubious assumptions.
One study’s results clearly confirm that performance appraisal takes place in a
social context and that context plays a major role in the effectiveness of that process
and in how participants react to that process (Farr and Levy, 2007; Levy and Williams,
2004).
More precisely, our study shows that, when interrogated on the determinants of their
motivation to evaluate employees’ performance at work, managers express opinions
that can be associated with each of these perspectives: psychometric, affective, political,
strategic, cultural, justice, and symbolic. These different theoretical frameworks are not
in conflict. Rather, they provide complementary insights that contribute to a better
understanding of the performance appraisal processes, with no single one providing a
comprehensive explanation of performance ratings in practice. Consequently, an
integrated theoretical perspective is required for a better understanding of performance
appraisal. The traditional psychometric perspective, with its excessive focus on
measurement accuracy, pays too little attention to concerns about fairness perceptions,
rater and ratee reactions, and organizational implementation issues. Consequently, our Evaluate
results confirm that the call for a more balanced approach in terms of the issues subordinate
suggested by the various appraisal perspectives might assist in its greater use (Farr and
Jacobs, 2006). performance
One particularly interesting study finding shows that employee performance
evaluation’s real function as a procedure lies not in the rational claims upheld in the
managerial literature, but rather in the more diffuse area of meaning management. 287
In doing so, this study shifts the traditional focus of employee performance appraisal
research toward a social context. Indeed, results confirm the theory of “social
construction” (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) which depicts employee performance
evaluation as a rationalized institutional and political myth (Meyer and Rowan, 1977).
Employee performance evaluation is institutional because it relies on beliefs, norms and
rituals through which the members of an organization create and sustain views
regarding the value of one employee over another. Employee performance appraisal is
rationalized because it takes the form of rules, forms and procedures. Employee
performance evaluation is a myth because it is a process based on beliefs, which cannot
be tested objectively. Our interviews show performance appraisals provide a broad
range of work rules and expectations that guide the efforts of actors and make sense out
of doing tasks assigned by others. Here, the worker will be measured on specific
performance, which is thus important. Without the rules, employees may conclude that
nothing counts. In addition, appraisals support the need for order in the organization.
Although problematic, evaluation attempts to control, interpret and reward behaviour.
Ratings show that managers care what subordinates do and provide a sense of order to
the vast number of tasks performed. Without appraisals, actors would be taking a leap
into chaos.
In our study, participants frequently argued that appraisals are much too subjective
and overly influenced by supervisors’ prejudices and shifting values to be an accurate
reflection of a worker’s contribution. Although they acknowledged various appraisal
shortcomings, participants asserted that rating provides the best available basis for
rewarding performance through a merit-based reward structure. Curiously, managers
and employees continue to accept appraisal systems even while recognizing that the
process is fraught with inaccuracies. Under such circumstances, continued reliance on
the formal appraisal process could be explained by reasons proposed by Kellough and
Lu (1993) in support of the persistence of merit pay in the US public sector. First,
performance appraisal is symbolically and politically attractive, and corresponds to a
business stereotype. Such management programs could be seen as a way to make all
employees more accountable for achieving high quality performance at work. Second,
performance evaluation is also perceived as a hierarchical control tool that corresponds
to classical concepts of good management. Specifically, those who control the
performance appraisal process also control the distribution of awards. Performance
appraisal thus becomes a means of strengthening the organizational hierarchy.
Furthermore, institutional theory suggests that increased attention given to issues
of employee performance management puts pressure on organizations to enhance
external legitimacy and satisfy internal constituencies. However, the implementation
of performance appraisal policies alone will not address the “inner workings” of the
organization. As illustrated, if performance appraisals are simply “added on” to the
existing management culture, supervisors and employees may not see the full merits of
QROM the policies, which will therefore remain underutilized. This seems to be the case for the
4,3 supervisors in this study, many of whom expressed mixed feelings about the policies
themselves, as well as their implementation and utilization.
Practical contributions: managers’ motivation to evaluate subordinate performance
is less about the technique used and more about leadership support, execution and
overall performance culture. The findings of our study have several implications for
288 organizations. Notably, to ensure the optimal success of a performance management
system, there are a number of prerequisites, including the quality of the evaluation form,
the competency and motivation of managers in evaluating and communicating
performances, and an organizational context that is conducive to performance appraisal.
In other words, while a adequate form is certainly important, what a successful
performance management system needs even more is a willingness to spend the time
and effort (and, therefore, money) necessary to promote and explain the system to staff
by means of regular training activities and communication. Performance evaluation
practices and methods must be perceived as being relevant and easy to understand and
apply from the perspective of the personnel. The motivation of managers to evaluate
employee performance is also dependent on having the clear support of the
organization’s executives, who must set an example.
In other words, companies must make sure that their performance management
program is not perceived as just another program cooked up by human resources
professionals, but rather as a priority of upper management. It is important to foster a
culture of feedback and of communication of the organization’s strategy, objectives and
values and to clarify the strategic impact and influence of this process on the other human
resources management processes (e.g. development, career, selection). Accordingly, the
role of raters is a crucial one, particularly with regard to their capacity to evaluate
performance and their motivation to do so. In addition, it is important to consult and
involve executives in the development, management and review of performance
management programs. It is also essential that upper management rewards managers
who are capable of evaluating the performance of their employees, as well as taking into
account how managers carry out their performance evaluation duties at the time when
they, in turn, are evaluated by their immediate superiors.
Some of these implications are consistent with another recent survey of over 550
human resources professionals, which shows overwhelmingly that the main challenge
faced by organizations is that managers are unable to have difficult performance
discussions (Kochanski and Becom, 2008; WorldatWork and Sibson Consulting, 2007).
More precisely, 71 percent of organizations say their managers lack courage to have
difficult performance discussions. This survey of HR professionals also shows that
employees’ perception of performance as an HR process (rather than an executive
mandate) along with poor goal-setting ranked as the second and third greatest
challenges, respectively.
More specifically, if supervisors, executives and human resources professionals
are aware of the subtle yet pervasive role communication plays in the performance
appraisal process, perhaps they can address these issues in a proactive and productive
manner. One recommendation is to modify the discourse of performance appraisal
policies. It can be argued that once performance appraisal systems are formally
instituted, support for the implementation and application of such procedures should
be clearly communicated to employees. Managers should understand the reasoning
behind these policies and be taught specific skills related to providing feedback. At Evaluate
the organizational level, communicative support from executives should be more subordinate
effective for the implementation of performance appraisal policies. And in order to
minimize negativity among managers, human resources departments should make it performance
clear that these programs are not intended to be burdensome. Some of the advantages
of performance appraisal should be communicated to workers and employees. For
example, training sessions could illustrate the positive aspects of the performance 289
appraisal process, while providing a realistic overview of its limitations.

Limits and future research

This study is subject to a number of limitations linked to the use of a qualitative
methodological approach and certain sample characteristics. Specifically, the fact that
we conducted our interviews with managers who were all enrolled in an MBA program
may also have affected their answers. Moreover, it is possible that managers’ opinions
resulted from a process of legitimacy, justification or rationalization (Staw, 1980; Weick,
1979), or perhaps even the manner in which top executives chose to justify their
decisions. This study doesn’t compare what managers think with what they actually do
in practice over a long period (their actual ratings distribution). Finally, more in-depth
interviews with managers would probably be helpful to better understand this topic. In
addition, interviews with other actors, such as human resources professionals or
executives, would be important to provide insight from different actors’ points of view.
Accordingly, future studies on performance appraisal policy could benefit from the
theoretical framework of structuration (Giddens, 1984). Our results show that putting a
performance appraisal policy on paper is no guarantee that it will be followed in the
manner intended. In order to create a supportive climate for performance appraisal,
attention must be given to structures that facilitate policy implementation and
utilization. Consequently, future researchers should investigate performance appraisal
systems through the lens of communication. From this perspective, the role executives
and human resources professionals play, along with their discourse, must be seriously
considered in performance appraisal policy implementation. We can then address
questions such as how executives and human resources professionals communicate the
details of an acceptable performance evaluation by a manager, how they influence and
control the actions of managers through their discourse and how performance
appraisal procedures are appropriated faithfully and ironically. In addition, the role of
communication plays during this process can be clarified.
Since performance evaluation manipulations are inevitable, it is appropriate to
assess what consequences they may entail for employees. Poon (2004) shows that the
politically motivated manipulation of performance evaluations, likely the result of a
supervisor’s desire to punish employees, reduces subordinate job satisfaction while
increasing turnover. However, politically motivated performance manipulations aimed
at rewarding employees, avoiding negative consequences and promoting a good work
climate (i.e. to avoid conflict), have no impact on subordinate job satisfaction and
turnover. As proposed by other authors, researchers should evaluate performance
appraisal effectiveness while taking into account the goal of improving subordinate
performance (DeNisi and Gonzalez, 2004; DeNisi, 1996). We would also suggest
studying employee reactions to performance evaluation manipulations. For example,
QROM in what contexts might employees prefer biased performance evaluations over fair and
4,3 equitable ones?
Finally, from a methodological point of view, the performance appraisal field has
always been a highly quantitative field. Consequently, a more qualitative approach to
this domain should be emphasized. However, in the future, we should be careful about
perpetuating the debate between both these fields of knowledge. In order to go beyond
290 the “quantitative and qualitative” debate, Gelo et al. (2008) propose using the recently
developed Mixed Method Research, while Madill and Gough (2008) envisage how
communication between research communities can be enhanced. Whatever approach is
selected, we should try to better integrate qualitative and quantitative research as a
way of furthering our understanding of performance appraisal.

References
Altheide, D.L. (1987), “Ethnographic content analysis”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 10, pp. 65-77.
Banks, C.G. and Murphy, K.R. (1985), “Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in
performance appraisal”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 335-45.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, Garden City, NJ.
Bernardin, H.J. and Villanova, P. (1986), “Performance appraisal”, in Locke, E.A. (Ed.),
Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings, Lexington Books, Lexington, pp. 43-62.
Borman, W.C. (1991), “Job behavior, performance and effectiveness”, in Dunnette, M.D. and
Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2,
Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 271-326.
Bretz, R., Milkovich, G.T. and Read, W.H. (1992), “The current state of performance appraisal
research and practice: concerns, directions and implications”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 18, pp. 111-37.
Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1986), “Affect and appraisal accuracy: liking as an integral
dimension in evaluating performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 672-8.
Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives,
South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Cleveland, J.N. and Murphy, K.R. (1992), “Analyzing performance appraisal as goal directed
behaviour”, in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 121-85.
DeNisi, A.S. (1996), Cognitive Approach to Performance Appraisal: A Program of Research,
Routledge, New York, NY.
DeNisi, A.S. and Gonzalez, J.A. (2004), “Design performance appraisal systems to improve
performance”, in Locke, E.E. (Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior,
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 60-72.
Dipboye, R.L. (1985), “Some neglected variables in research on discrimination in appraisals”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 116-27, 147.
Farr, J.L. and Jacobs, R. (2006), “Trust us: new perspectives on performance appraisal”,
in Bennett, W., Lance, C.E. and Woehr, D.J. (Eds), Performance Measurement: Current
Perspectives and Future Challenges, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 321-37.
Farr, J.L. and Levy, P.E. (2007), “Perfomance appraisal”, in Koppes, L.L. (Ed.), Historical
Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 311-27.
Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1992), “A due process metaphor for performance Evaluate
appraisal”, in Cummings, L. and Staw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 14, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 129-77. subordinate
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D. and Benetka, G. (2008), “Quantitative and qualitative research: beyond performance
the debate”, Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, Vol. 42, pp. 266-90.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity
Press, Cambridge, MA. 291
Harris, M.M. (1994), “Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: a theoretical
framework”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 737-56.
Ilgen, D.R., Barnes-Farrell, J.L. and McKellin, D.B. (1993), “Performance appraisal process
research in the 1980s: what has it contributed to appraisal in use?”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 54, pp. 321-68.
Johns, G. (2006), “The essential impact of context on organizational behaviour”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31, pp. 386-408.
Judge, T.A. and Ferris, G.R. (1993), “Social context of performance evaluation decisions”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 80-105.
Kellough, J.E. and Lu, H. (1993), “The paradox of merit pay in the public sector: persistence of a
problematic procedure”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 13, pp. 45-65.
Kochanski, J. and Becom, A. (2008), “Four key steps to performance management”, Workspan,
February, pp. 33-6.
Latham, G.P. (1986), “Job performance and appraisal”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Wiley, Chichester,
pp. 117-53.
Latham, G.P. (1988), “Human resource training and development”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 39, pp. 545-82.
Lefkowitz, J. (2000), “The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance
ratings: a literature review and proposed causal model”, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 67-85.
Levy, P.E. and Williams, J.R. (2004), “The social context of performance appraisal: a review and
framework for the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30, pp. 881-905.
Liden, R.C. and Graen, G. (1980), “Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 451-65.
Lindlof, T.R. (1995), Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA.
Longenecker, C.O., Sims, H.P. and Gioia, D.A. (1987), “Behind the mask: the politics of employee
appraisal”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1, pp. 183-93.
Madill, A. and Gough, B. (2008), “Qualitative research and its place in psychological science”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 254-71.
Manning, P.K. and Cullum-Swan, B. (1994), “Narrative, content and semiotic analysis”, in Denzin, N.K.
and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 463-78.
Marchel, C. and Owens, S. (2007), “Qualitative research in psychology: could William James get a
job?”, History of Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 301-24.
Maroney, B.P. and Buckley, M.R. (1992), “Does research in performance appraisal influence the
practice of performance appraisal? Regretfully not!”, Public Personnel Management
Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 185-95.
Mercer (2002), Effective Performance Management Practices, Mercer Human Resource
Consulting, New York, NY.
QROM Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-63.
4,3
Morin, D., Murphy, K.R. and Larocque, A. (1999), “The relationship between performance
appraisal context and rating inflation”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 45,
pp. 694-726.
Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,
292 Organizational and Goal-based Perspectives, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Murphy, K.R., Cleveland, J.N., Skattebo, A.L. and Kinney, T.B. (2004), “Raters who pursue
different goals give different ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 158-64.
Napier, N.K. and Latham, G.P. (1986), “Outcome expectancies of people who conduct
performance appraisals”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 827-37.
Newman, D.A., Kinney, T. and Farr, J.L. (2004), “Job performance ratings”, in Thomas, J.C. (Ed.),
Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Industrial and Organizational
Assessment, Vol. 4, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 373-89.
People IQ (2005), “Study: performance appraisals are damaging HR’s reputation”, available at:
www.peopleiq.com/hot_news.html
Pfeffer, J. (1981), “Management as symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of
organizational paradigm”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 1-52.
Poon, J.M.L. (2004), “Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover
intention”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33, pp. 322-34.
Rennie, D., Watson, K. and Monteiro, A. (2002), “The rise of qualitative research in psychology”,
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 179-89.
Schneier, C.E., Shaw, D.G. and Beatty, R.W. (1991), “Performance measurement and
management: a tool for strategy execution”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 30,
pp. 279-301.
Silverman, D. (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Spencer, J.R. and Keeping, L.M. (2005), “Construct confusion? A qualitative review of the
influence of conscious rating distortion”, paper presented at the Meeting of the
Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, June, Toronto, Ontario.
Staw, B.M. (1980), “Rationality and justification in organizational life”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 45-80.
Tesch, R. (1993), “Software for qualitative researchers: analysis needs and program capabilities”,
in Fielding, N.G. and Lee, R.M. (Eds), Using Computers in Qualitative Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 16-37.
Tsui, A.S. and Barry, B. (1986), “Interpersonal affect and rating errors”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 586-99.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (2005), “Contextual factors affecting rating
behaviour”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30, pp. 89-98.
Villanova, P. and Bernardin, H.J. (1989), “Impression management in the context of performance
appraisal”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Rozenfeld, P. (Eds), Impression Management in the
Organization, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 299-313.
Weick, K.E. (1979), “Cognitive processes in organizational symbolism”, Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 1, pp. 101-15.
Wong, K.F.E. and Kwong, J.Y.Y. (2007), “Effects of rater goals on rating patterns: evidence from
an experimental field study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 577-85.
Wood, R.E. and Marshall, V. (2008), “Accuracy and effectiveness in appraisal outcomes: the Evaluate
influence of self-efficacy, personal factors and organisational variables”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 295-313. subordinate
WorldatWork and Sibson Consulting (2007), The State of Performance Management, a survey performance
brief, Sibson Consulting, Princeton, NJ, July, p. 5.

Further reading 293

Arvey, R.D. and Murphy, K.R. (1998), “Performance evaluation in work settings”, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 141-68.
Bernardin, H.J. and Beatty, R.W. (1984), Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at
Work, Kent Publishing, Boston, MA.
Bernardin, H.J. and Villanova, P. (2005), “Research stream in rater self-efficacy”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 30, pp. 61-88.
Edelman, L.B. (1990), “Legal environment and organizational governance: the expansion of due
process in the American workplace”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 95, pp. 1401-40.
Greenberg, J. (1986), “Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 340-2.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1989), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

About the authors

Sylvie St-Onge is Professor at HEC Montréal and holds a PhD in Organizational Behaviour and
Industrial Relations from the Schulich School of Business (York University, Canada). Her areas
of expertise encompass compensation and performance management, governance and
work-family balance practices. She is coauthor of three books in human resources
management, compensation management and supervision. She is also coeditor of two recent
handbooks on performance management. She currently serves as editor and director of Gestion,
a referred professional journal. Sylvie St-Onge is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: sylvie.st-onge@hec.ca
Denis Morin is an Associate Professor of Human Resources and Industrial/Organizational
Psychology at the School of Management at the University of Quebec in Montreal. He received
his PhD degree in Industrial Relations from Université Laval (Quebec city). His research interests
include performance appraisal, staffing, emotional intelligence, personality in work organization,
psychological measurement and person-environment fit.
Mario Bellehumeur is a student based at HEC, Montreal, Canada.
Francine Dupuis is a student based at HEC, Montreal, Canada.

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

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