articulating appraisal system

7/29/2019 Articulating Appraisal System

1/25

Articulating appraisal systemeffectiveness based onmanagerial cognitionsRobert P. Wright and Frenda K.K. Cheung

Department of Management and Marketing,The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this article is to investigate how managers see, interpret and make sense oftheir performance management system experiences and recommend the way forward for both policyand practice, in what makes effective appraisal systems.

Design/methodology/approach The study applied the repertory grid to elicit the personalconstructs of how managers make sense of their appraisal experiences. The cognitive mappingmethodology allows the researcher to go deep into the respondents theories in use to provide newinsights on how they think. This, in turn, allows a better understanding of the language managersuse to make sense of the experiences.

Findings Core conceptual dimensions, cognitive maps and cluster diagrams were generated,providing implications for research, practice and new directions for future research.

Research limitations/implications Although the application of the grid technique wastime-consuming, the finer grain level of analysis provided a deeper appreciation of managerstheories in use. The study provides a cross-sectional view of the current state of managerial cognitions.Findings open up new ways of thinking and new way of doing in appraisal research and practice.

Practical implications The findings provided very meaningful insights on what managers lookfor in appraisal system effectiveness, along with the documentation of how they make connections

between their own elicited personal constructs on system effectiveness.

Originality/value The paper makes a modest contribution to both theory and practice from theperspective of managerial cognitions about the entire appraisal systems using a method originatingfrom clinical psychology.

Keywords Performance management systems, Performance appraisal, Management effectiveness,Cognition, Hong Kong

Paper type Research paper

I will state my belief that cognitive appraisal research will continue to be a viable, vibrantarea for research, although I think that the cognitive research in the future will need to bedifferent from the cognitive research in the past (Angelo DeNisi, 1996, p. 173).

IntroductionIn the midst of both regional and global economic turbulence, organizations are facingan unprecedented need to downsize, restructure and re-engineer in order to remaincompetitive and to survive (Grote, 1996; Stivers and Joyce, 2000). With changingparadigms of the way we do business and manage people, issues of productivity andthe evaluation of performance have risen to the top of every decision-making agenda.In this respect, performance management systems have come to play an even more

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR36,2

206

Received 26 July 2004Revised 19 July 2005Accepted 21 September2005

Personnel Review

Vol. 36 No. 2, 2007

pp. 206-230

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0048-3486

DOI 10.1108/00483480710726118


2/25

indispensable role in helping organizations reach their goals of productivity. Whenimplemented and managed properly, appraisal systems as a value-added service cangive a company a competitive edge by helping it achieve its business strategies (Allan,1994; DDI, 1994; Kotter and Hesketh, 1992; Martin and Bartol, 1998; Murphy, 1993;

Orpen, 1997; Roberts, 1996; Stivers and Joyce, 2000).Yet, in view of their rise to importance, effective and successful appraisal systems in

organizations are not common as one might assume given the plethora of researchundertaken in this area of human resource management (Bretz et al., 1992; Murphy andCleveland, 1995). Most appraisal systems fail (Carson et al., 1991; Deming, 1986; DeNisi,1996; Longnecker and Goff, 1992; Phillips, 1987; Schay, 1993; Schweiger and Sumners,1994; Wright and THC, 1999). Many studies, though noteworthy in advancing the field,have been conducted based on a limited focus on the mechanics (or aspects) of thesystem rather than the system as a whole (Bernardin and Pence, 1980; Ilgen et al., 1979;Latham and Yukl, 1976, Allan, 1994; Malinauskas and Clements, 1987; Meyer et al.,1965; Smith, 1986). Hence, never fully presenting the bigger picture of how the coreactivities of the appraisal process hang together in relation to each other. Perhaps wehave been too preoccupied at the micro level and not enough due diligence on howappraisals and performance management in their entirety impacts upon corporateinitiatives and business strategies (DeNisi, 1996; Huselid, 1995). Similarly, relative tothe volumes of research on appraisal and appraisal system effectiveness, not much isknown about how organizational actors (both raters and ratees), party to the appraisalprocess, construe and make sense of their appraisal experiences within the biggerframework of the performance management system. Research of this kind in the past,have purely focused on the rater (per se) in their decision making role when making

judgements about employee performance. We believe the type of cognitive researchadvocated in this paper, built on the solid foundation of past works, makes a modestadvancement to the field. Investigating managerial mental frames of reference will

allow us to go deeper into better understanding what people look for in appraisalsystem effectiveness and hence, design.As such, this paper extends the present mainstream research on appraisal

cognitions by investigating the following fundamental research questions:

RQ1. How do practicing managers see, interpret and make sense of theirperformance management experiences?

RQ2. In what way can these managerial cognitions of appraisal system experiencelead to a deeper understanding of the way forward in designing moreeffective performance management systems?

Why managerial cognitions of appraisals?

Landy and Farrs (1980) classic review gave birth to the cognitive era in appraisalresearch. Prior studies purely focused their attention on appraisal rating scales andrater error training as means of increasing the accuracy of performance evaluations.But Landy and Farr (1980) advocated the real important part of the appraisal equationwas the rater and how they collected and used performance information to makeappraisal decisions. They convincingly argued that raters engaged in cognitiveprocesses closely related to the decision making process and that if we are to fullycomprehend how raters make appraisal decisions, we would be able to make appraisals

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

207


3/25

more accurate. By redirecting appraisal research towards looking at raters as keydecision makers (and in effect encouraging us to think about rater cognitiveprocesses) Landy and Farrs (1980) vision opened up new horizons in providing adeeper understanding of what really happened in appraisals.

Feldmans (1981) seminal work on beyond attribution theory throws more light onthe importance of advocating a cognitive orientation in appraisal research if we are tobetter understand the phenomenon (Feldman, 1986; Landy and Farr, 1980; Wherry andBartlett, 1982). Ilgen and Feldman (1983) further argued that if appraisals are toimprove, a better understanding of the perceptions of the whole system needs to beachieved. They proposed that with more understanding from a cognitive perspective,in how actors make sense of and interpret their appraisal experiences, appraisalsystems can be better designed, appraisers better trained, and more accurate ratingswould be likely (Bernardin et al., 1982; DeNisi et al., 1984). These early pioneers calledfor a more global approach to the appraisal system and advocated the importance ofsocial cognition principles as a way of creating a more thorough understanding of theappraisal process.

DeNisis (1996) program of research in this area also raised the bar even further inhow cognitive research can move the field in bringing new insights on how we see, andhow raters make sense of their appraisal experiences. He makes a nice comparisonbetween different cognitive appraisal approaches and how past works had focused ondifferent aspects and variables of the appraisal process to better understand the wholesystem of appraisals. His studies on the rater as not just a messenger, but as an active(selective) seeker of information (often imposing their own preconceived notions ofperformance/schematas upon the information collected) and the perceptual shapingpower of the purpose of appraisal systems influences what information raterssearched for in making judgements about performance, made it even more important tolook at appraisal cognitions. Raters do not just store raw appraisal information; they

often use different information acquisition strategies to solicit different information,interpret them, and then store this interpreted representation for decision-making. Asthis process of construing continues, the rater begins to build an impression of aparticular worker, which inevitably results in the employee being categorised/labelledand a schema activated for that worker. Hence, the schema activated for that employeebecomes crucial to the appraisal process, since it provides the framework forinterpretation. Such endeavours opened up new avenues of understanding aboutappraisals and the appraisal process (DeNisi et al., 1984).

Another reason for researching the importance of appraisal cognitive perceptionswas advocated by Longnecker and Nykodym (1996) whom nicely articulated that thecognitive perceptions people have about performance appraisals and performancemanagement systems was a key determinant of a systems long term success or failure

(DeNisi, 1996; Wright, 2004a). Hence, if employees were not happy with appraisals,they were subsequently unwilling to take an active part in the process, do not see anyvalue in it, which in turn creates low morale and this inevitably affects productivity.Therefore, if we can have a better understanding of employees cognitivethought-processes, we can find ways of tailoring appraisal systems in a way thatsatisfies the key stakeholders for system effectiveness.

Yet, although past appraisal research has also focused on gauging employeessatisfaction levels (see Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Dipboye and de Pontbriand, 1981;

PR36,2

208


4/25

Hind and Baruach, 1997; Laumeyer and Beebe, 1988; Mount, 1983, 1984; and Pooyanand Eberhardt, 1989), they did not examine in any depth the mental frames ofreference/cognitive thought-processes of how respondents construed their entireappraisal experiences. Moreover, almost all of these past studies have largely depended

on questionnaires to measure employees perceptions of appraisal systems. Whilstthere is nothing wrong with this, we believe that researching cognitions requires theuse of a methodological technique that is able to capture respondents mental modelswithout the bias of predetermined questions on a questionnaire that may in manyways, influence and frame their responses. We believe the emphasis of the cognitiveorientation towards appraisal research is to go much further beyond the supplied andpredetermined questions of a survey instrument to really bring to the surface, theunder-the-skin phenomena (Hodgkinson, 2003) of how people see, interpret and makesense of their worlds using their own theories-in-use, in their own working language(with a minimum of researcher bias). Only then, will we truly venture deep into themental psyche of how and why people think about their life experiences.

More recently, several noteworthy works have indicated the need to head in this

new research direction if we are to better explain, predict and understand the entireappraisal process (Bretz et al., 1992; Fletcher, 2001; Hodgkinson, 2003; Murphy andCleveland, 1995; Sadler-Smith, 1998; Wright, 2004a; Wright and Lam, 2002). One suchmethodology that has received some attention in the cognitive front is that of GeorgeKellys (1955) repertory grid technique, designed to elicit the personal constructs ofhow real subjects perceive their real life experiences. Thus far, the application of thistechnique in management/human resources studies has been encouraging and it is thisapproach that we used to investigate our research questions (Borman, 1987; Dunn et al.,1987; Easterby-Smith et al., 1996; Jankowicz, 1990, 2004; Senior, 1996; Stewart andStewart, 1981; Swan, 1997; Wright, 2004a).

SampleA total of 100 individual repertory grid interviews (each lasting an average of twohours) were administered to practicing managers from various industries (covering thegovernment sector, airlines, telecommunications, manufacturing, services, andproperty development organizations). Managers had an average of ten years ofexperience with appraisals and had spent an average of six years in their presentorganization. All of the managers had gone through at least one appraisal cycle in theirpresent organization in the immediate past 12 months. Males accounted for 36 percentand females 64 percent of the entire sample.

MethodRepertory grid techniqueAs the present investigation was more concerned with understanding the way peoplemake sense of their worlds using their own language (and not that of the researcher),we found Kellys (1955) repertory grid technique (RGT) to be an appropriatemethodology (Easterby-Smith et al., 1996; Fransella and Bannister, 1977; Stewart andStewart, 1981). Grounded in Personal Construct Theory, this cognitive mapping toolhas a high degree of reliability (Adams-Webber, 1989; Slater, 1977; Smith, 2000) and isable to produce levels of analysis that are statistically rigorous while simultaneouslyproducing visual cognitive maps (principal component analysis) and Focus Tree

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

209


5/25

Diagrams (cluster analysis) that are easily understandable to practicing managers(Fransella and Bannister, 1977; Jankowicz, 1990, 2004; Stewart and Stewart, 1981;Wright, 2004b). All analyses have been carried out using the RepGrid program (Centrefor Person Computer Studies, 1993), which has been specifically designed to treat

repertory grid data.

Grid procedure used to elicit personal constructs of appraisal system effectivenessThree core procedures are central to the successful administration of the gridtechnique: the choice of appraisal elements, the elicitation of personal constructs, andthe rating of the elements given respondents constructions of their appraisal worlds.Each manager was shown nine representative appraisal system elements (activities) on3 x 4 cards to elicit their personal views about them. These key appraisal systemactivities were derived from an extensive review of the relevant literature and feedbackfrom practicing managers (throughout numerous pilot tests) on what constituted atypical appraisal system. Though it is clearly acknowledged from the outset that there

are many other possible aspects of an appraisal system, we believe that the nineappraisal system activities identified for the purposes of this investigation provided areasonable reflection of the most commonly repeated core activities found in mostperformance management systems. As such, by eliciting the cognitive perceptions ofthe way managers make sense of their appraisal system experiences using these ninecore elements, we were confident of tapping into all four corners of managerialcognitions of appraisal system effectiveness (Wright, 2004a; Wright and Lam, 2002).

Crosschecks from real managers and the literature confirmed these appraisalsystem elements. More specifically, all appraisal systems have some form of appraisaltraining in place to equip staff with the necessary skills and knowledge on how to carryout their roles (Bernardin and Pence, 1980; Feldman, 1986). Both the annual formalappraisal interview (Clement and Stevens, 1986; Pearce and Porter, 1986), along with

on-going progress review feedback (albeit formally or informally) (Fisher, 1979; Meyer,1991) also constitute a major part of appraisal systems. This is complimented with theubiquitous existence of self-appraisals (again, whether formally or informally) (Farhet al., 1991; Lane and Herriot, 1990). Another important component of an appraisalsystem is the guidelines and notes (Industrial Relations Review and Report, 1994a, b) tohelp employees have a better understanding about the system, its processes andimportant dates of the appraisal cycle. The performance criteria and standards used toappraise employee performance is another fundamental aspect of any appraisal system(Bobko and Colella, 1994), along with additional work goals and objectives (Erez et al.,1985; Latham and Steele, 1983) set between the appraiser and appraisee on what is tobe achieved during the appraisal period (together, performance standards/criteria andthe setting of work goals establishes the well known expression: what gets measured,

gets done!). Finally, the appraisal form is seen as the backbone of the entire system as itis the ultimate data capturer of performance information without it appraisalinformation cannot be documented and used for personnel decisions (IndustrialRelations Review and Report, 1994b). (Please see Wright, 2004a for a more detailedaccount of how these appraisal activities were justified).

Therefore, the supplied appraisal system elements used in the present study aresummarised as: E1: Attending performance appraisal (PA) training; E2:Attending/conducting the annual interview; E3: Reading appraisal guidelines and

PR36,2

210


6/25

notes; E4: Attending/conducting progress reviews throughout the year; E5: Carryingout the performance criteria /standards used to appraise performance; E6:Designing/thinking about designing the PA system in the way you prefer; E7:Reading/filling in the appraisal form (design of the form); E8: Appraising yourself

(formally or informally); and E9: Setting your own work goals. Appraisal element, E6,managers preference for the type of appraisal system they perceived as being highlyeffective (Grote, 1996; Hartle, 1995; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995) was deliberatelyincluded in the list to distinguish the actual from the desired system.

Given these representative appraisal system elements, managers were shown eachof the nine appraisal activities in groups of threes called a Triad and asked theKellyian question: In what way are any two of these similar, but different from thethird, in terms of how well or how not well they are done in your organization? UsingE1, E2 and E3 as an example (E1: Attending appraisal training/E2: Attending theannual interview/E3: Reading appraisal guidelines and notes) a typical response isusually in the form of a construct such as, E1 and E2 are similar because I can

contribute and that is why it is done well; whereas E3 is different and not well donebecause I dont get a chance to have my input. (Hence: I can contribute - I dont get achance to have my input). According to Kelly (1955), a construct is always bi-polar innature and reflects a dimension from which an individual formulates perceptions tomake sense of the world. Each appraisal system element was triadically comparedtwice, using different combinations to elicit as many personal constructs as possible.Once the constructs were elicited, the manager was then asked to rate each of the nineappraisal activities using a five-point scale based on their own generated bi-polarconstructs (used as semantic differentials); A rating of 1 represented elements thatwere closest to the left-hand side of the bi-polar construct elicited; and a rating of 5represented elements that were best explained by the bi-polar construct pole on theright of the grid (Please see Figure 1 which shows an example of an aggregatedrepertory grid). After all of the elements were rated, the respondents were asked tochoose the side of the bi-polar constructs that in their view, represents a key attributeof an effective appraisal system. These preferred construct poles are indicated with acheck mark in Figure 1. Upon the completion of this exercise, all grid respondentsconstructs and ratings were aggregated (Bougon, 1992) to generate one aggregaterepertory grid as shown in Figure 1. The data was then inputted into the RepGridprogramme to generate a principal component analysis, collective cognitive maps, andcluster analysis for discussion.

It is important to note that the present investigation supplied the nine appraisalsystem elements to each of our 100 in-depth repertory grid interviews because we wereinterested in (eliciting and) comparing managerial cognitions across the board.

According to the repertory grid methodology literature, you need to keep either theelements constant or the constructs constant to make any meaningful comparisonbetween elicited cognitions of individuals (Fransella and Bannister, 1977; Jankowicz,1990, 2004; Stewart and Stewart, 1981; Wright, 2004b). As the present study wasdesigned to elicit the personal constructs of the way managers see, make sense of andinterpret their appraisal worlds, we believed it to be appropriate and reasonable tosupply the elements to our respondents. Although we acknowledge the presence ofsome degree of researcher bias here, our results below do show that the constructs

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

211


7/25

Figure 1.Sample of aggregatedcollective grid of all 100managers

PR36,2

212


8/25

elicited are entirely based on respondents own words, displaying their own theories inuse, based on their own real-life appraisal system experiences.

ResultsMost frequently elicited super-ordinate constructs of appraisal system effectivenessThe 100 face-to-face in-depth repertory grid interviews produced 496 useable bi-polarpersonal constructs of how managers perceive their organizations performanceappraisal systems. We employed a data reduction method to cluster (group) similarconstructs together using two experts for inter-rater reliability. The exercise allowed usto aggregate and reduce the original 496 elicited constructs into 19 major collectivebi-polar construct groupings (with a 98 percent reliability between the two experts).Table I provides a sample of how one collective construct was generated from 33individually elicited constructs from respondents. The coded numbers on the left of thetable signifies the corresponding respective construct elicited from differentrespondents for cross-reference purposes.

Table II shows these major collective appraisal system constructs with theirfrequency count in the respondents own language. For example, if you take the sixthmost frequently occurring construct in the table (tailored to help individualdevelopment and learn not tailored to help individual development and learn), youwill notice that this cognitive perception was repeated 33 times from a total of 496elicited constructs. The top five most frequently occurring constructs, accounting for50 percent of the total pool of constructs elicited, were concerned with the followingissues: standards, guidelines and measurements being clear, the existence of some formof involvement and participation in the process, that appraisals were objective andpreference for more control within the system. Other key concerns for systemeffectiveness (highlighted in bold) that appeared prominently among the mostfrequently occurring themes from the 496 elicited constructs were: tailored to help

individuals develop and learn, meaningful, sense of ownership, adds value, linked tobusiness strategy, and the need to make appraisals more challenging.

Fundamental core perceptual dimensions based on construct loadingsTable III shows the construct loadings on two principal components (namely the x-axisand y-axis on two dimensions in psychological space). Given the constructs with theheaviest loadings, component 1 is labelled, sense of ownership no sense ofownership and component 2, can be measured cannot be measured. Components 1and 2 accounted for 79 percent of the total variance. Thus, once we can identify the twocore perceptual dimensions from which all of the other constructions of appraisals areelicited, we can clearly describe effective appraisal systems by using these coredimensions when plotted on a two dimensional map (see Figures 2 and 3 later). Our

findings indicate that the most preferred/effective appraisal system is one in whichemployees have a sense of ownership, and which also clearly lays down ameasurement system.

Construct correlations of key perceptions of system effectivenessTable IV shows the correlation between the major constructs elicited in thisinvestigation. This correlation table is generated by the RepGrid program (Blowersand OConnor, 1996; Centre for Person Computer Studies, 1993; Easterby-Smith et al.,

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

213


9/25


10/25

Collectivegrid

bi-polarconstructs

Numberofindividual

constructsa

1

Standards/guidelin

esandmeasurementsareclear

$

Standards/guidelinesandmeasurementsarenotclear

63

2

bThereisinvolvem

ent

$

Thereisnotinvolvement

50

3

bThereisfeedback

andparticipation

$

Thereisnofeedbackandparticipation

45

4

bObjective

$

Subjective

44

5

bHavecontrol

$

Donothavecontrol

39

6

bTailoredtohelpin

dividualdevelopmentandlearn

$

Nottailoredtohelpindividualdevelopmentandlearn

33

7

bWellprepared

$

Notwellprepared

32

8

bSeenasimportant

$

Notseenasimportant

30

9

bEasytounderstan

d

$

Noteasytounderstand

29

10

bAdequateguidelines

$

Inadequateguidelines

26

11

bMeaningful

$

Notmeaningful

19

12

bNottimeconsuming

$

Timeconsuming

14

13

bCanbemeasured

$

Cannotbemeasured

13

14

bSenseofownership

$

Nosenseofownership

12

15

bAddsvalue

$

Doesnotaddvalue

11

16

bUseful

$

Notuseful

10

17

bSpecificandfocus

ed

$

Generalandnotfocused

9

18

bLinkedtobusiness

strategy

$

Notlinkedtobusinessstrategy

9

19

bChallenging

$

Notchallenging

8

Totalnumberofindividualconstructs

496

Notes:aThiscolumnsho

wshowmanyindividuallyelicitedconstructsfrompracticingmanagersrep

resentedonecollectiveconstruct.Ea

chcollective

gridbi-polarconstructisbasedonsimilarindividualconstructs

beinggroupedtogethertoformulateanaggregateconstruct.Twoexpertswereemployed

todeterminethesegroupingswithaninter-raterreliabilityof98

percent;brepresentsrespondentspreferredpolewhenasked,Inyourview,

indesigning

ahighlyeffectiveappraisalsystem,whichsideofthebi-polarconstructsdoyouprefer?Newem

ergingconstructs(differentfromthe

documented

literature)areshowninitalics

Table II.100 practicing managers

collective constructs ofappraisal system

effectiveness

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

215


11/25

PrinCom1

PrinCom2

Collectivegridb

i2

polarconstructs

(x2

axis)b

(y2

axis)c

C1

aStandards/guidelinesandmeasurementsareclear

$

Standards/guidelinesandmeasu

rementsarenotclear

1.25

1.36

C2

aThereisinvolvem

ent

$

Thereisnoinvolvement

2.99

2

0.15

C

aThereisfeedbac

kandparticipation

$

Thereisnofeedbackandparticipation

2.21

0.33

C4

aObjective

$

Subjective

0.91

1.17

C5

aHavecontrol

$

Donothavecontrol

1.70

0.49

C6

aTailoredtohelp

individualdevelopandlearn

$

Nottailoredtohelpindividual

andlearn

1.50

0.03

C7

aWellprepared

$

Notwellprepared

0.46

0.05

C8

aSeenasimportant

$

Notseenasimportant

0.85

0.99

C9

aEasytounderstand

$

Noteasytounderstand

1.21

0.43

C10

aAdequateguidelines

$

Inadequateguidelines

0.42

1.79

C11

aMeaningful

$

Notmeaningful

1.67

0.22

C12

aNottimeconsum

ing

$

Timeconsuming

1.89

0.19

C13

aCanbemeasured

$

Cannotbemeasured

1.10

1.40

C14

aSenseofownership

$

Nosenseofownership

3.02

2

0.42

C15

aAddsvalue

$

Doesnotaddvalue

1.26

2

0.44

C16

aUseful

$

Notuseful

2.60

2

0.70

C17

aSpecificandfocu

sed

$

Generalandnotfocused

3.65

2

1.11

C18

aLinkedtobusinessstrategy

$

Notlinkedtobusinessstrategy

2.78

2

0.18

C19

aChallenging

$

Notchallenging

2.99

2

0.05

Percentageofvarianceforeach

component

68.61

10.53

Notes:Constructswith

thehighestloadingsareindicatedinitalics;a

Indicatesrespondentspreferredconstructswhenevaluating

performance

managementsystems;

bP

rincipalcomponent1(x-axis)islabelledassenseofownershipnosenseofownership;cPrincipalcomponent2(y-axis)is

labelledascanbemeasuredcannotbemeasured;Components1and2accountedfor79percen

tofthetotalvariance

Table III.Construct loading on twoprincipal components all 100 managers

PR36,2

216


12/25

Figure 2.Collective cognitive map

of all 100 managers inpsychological space

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

217


13/25

Figure 3.Strategies for manoeuvrefor each appraisal systemelement to effectiveness(location of E6)

PR36,2

218


14/25

Abbreviated

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

C13

C14

C15

C16

C17

C18

C19

constructs

Std

Inv

Fed

ObjCon

Tai

Pre

Imp

Und

GdlMnfTim

Mea

Own

Add

Use

Spe

Lin

Cha

C1

aClearstandards

0.490.630.57

0.57

0.49

0.23

0.65

0.75

0.66

0.53

0.66

0.81

0.41

0.49

0.40

0.45

0.55

0.45

C2

aInvolvement

0.790.430.920.76

0.30

0.38

0.59

0.140.800.93

0.43

0.95

0.59

0.88

0.84

0.920.91

C3

aFeedback

0.47

0.67

0.83

0.19

0.33

0.40

0.35

0.63

0.74

0.67

0.85

0.61

0.76

0.77

0.870.84

C4

aObjective

0.50

0.35

0.35

0.50

0.35

0.41

0.32

0.41

0.75

0.47

0.09

0.35

0.25

0.41

0.25

C5

aControl

0.62

0.35

0.50

0.62

0.410.810.89

0.50

0.79

0.35

0.71

0.62

0.76

0.83

C6

aTailored

0.252

0.09

0.44

0.29

0.75

0.80

0.35

0.78

0.44

0.63

0.62

0.72

0.85

C7

aPrepared

0.00

0.62

0.11

0.57

0.46

0.00

0.22

2

0.13

0.50

0.35

0.16

0.07

C8

aImportant

0.44

0.32

0.16

0.32

0.75

0.32

0.44

0.35

0.37

0.46

0.20

C9

aUnderstandable

0.29

0.75

0.80

0.35

0.45

0.44

0.63

0.62

0.53

0.38

C10aGuidelines

0.42

0.29

0.65

0.05

2

0.232

0.06

2

0.08

0.13

0.27

C11aMeaningful

0.89

0.32

0.72

0.23

0.75

0.69

0.72

0.73

C12aNottimeconsumin

g

0.41

0.82

0.54

0.80

0.77

0.810.84

C13aMeasurable

0.47

0.35

0.35

0.37

0.58

0.39

C14aOwnership

0.61

0.89

0.87

0.960.87

C15aAddsvalue

0.63

0.75

0.72

0.54

C16aUseful

0.97

0.900.69

C17aSpecific

0.930.69

C18aLinkedtobusiness

0.83

Notes:Constructswiththehighestcorrelationsareindicatedinitalics.aindicatesrespodnentsprefe

rredconstructpoleswhenevaluating

performance

managementsystems(pleaserefertoTableIIforfulllistingoftheelicitedconstructs).TheRepGr

idprogramcalculatedconstructcorrelationgiven

respondentsratingsofthesystemelementsbasedontheirco

llectiveconstructs.TheRepGridprogramisspecificallydesignedtoanaly

zegriddata

generatedfromsmallsam

plesand,assuch,thecorrelationsare

higherthanmoreconventionallargequestionnairesamples.Givenpastgridstudies,the

correlationsinthistable

areinthedirectionexpected

Table IV.Construct correlation

using RepGrid program All 100 managers

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

219


15/25

1996) based on the collective aggregated grid incorporating the average ratings andelicited collective constructs of our sample group as shown in Figure 1 earlier. Ofparticular interest is the involvement construct, (C2), which correlated highly witheight other constructs signifying its importance in how managers construe and

interpret their appraisal experiences. Specifically, when there was involvement in thesystem, there was a sense of ownership (C14), control (C5), higher chance thatappraisals would be linked to strategy (C18), challenging (C19), useful (C16), specific(C17), considered to be more meaningful (C11), and that time would be better utilized(C12). Construct 18, (C18), linked to strategy also appeared prominently correlatingwith issues of ownership (C14), that appraisals would be more specific and focused(C17), more useful (C16), involvement (C2), existence of feedback and participation (C3),and not time consuming (C12). Appraisals being challenging (C19), meaningful(C11), not time consuming (C12), existence of feedback and participation (C3) andownership (C14) also placed a lot of importance in the way managers evaluated theirappraisal experiences.

Cluster analysis (focus tree diagram) of appraisal constructionsThe RepGrid programme can also produce a Focus Tree Diagram (or cluster analysis)of the elicited data. This can be seen in Figure 4. You may recall that the power of thegrid technique is to elicit the constructs from the respondents own language, and laterrequired the subjects to rate the elements of the appraisal system (E1, E2, E3, . . .E9)using their own generated constructs. The grid technique in effect ensures that thepotential impact of researcher bias is minimized. It can be seen from this clusteranalysis that the smaller the clusters, the higher the significant matches between theratings and, hence, the stronger the matching. In Figure 4, several noteworthy findings

Figure 4.Collective focus treediagram of all 100managers

PR36,2

220


16/25

are evident: according to the five constructs clustered at the top right-hand side of thediagram, when standards/guidelines and measurement systems are clear, appraisalsare more objective and can be measured, and as such, are seen as important to thesystems success. Another tight clustering reveals that when appraisals are linked to

business strategy there is more involvement and sense of ownership, and all thismakes appraisals challenging. (Note that the opposite poles of these tight clusteringalso reveals some interesting insights on what managers do not want: when appraisalsare not linked to strategy, there is no ownership, no involvement and that appraisalsare not challenging). When this cluster is extended, we get a wider picture of whatmanagers want and look for in their view of an effective appraisal system. Appraisalsbecome more meaningful when they have more control within it, and when they are nottime-consuming. Another distinct cluster can be seen between constructs C16 and C17,where appraisals are seen to be useful when they are specific and focused furtherconfirming the results generated from the construct correlations.

Collective cognitive map of all managers perceptions of appraisal effectivenessFigure 2 shows the collective aggregate cognitive map (Bougon, 1992) of all 100managers. The cognitive map shows the relationship of the appraisal elements witheach other, the elicited constructs with other constructs, and how the elements relate tothe appraisal constructs in psychological space (on two core perceptual dimensions). Ofparticular interest is the location of the entire range of appraisal activities (E1, E2, E3. . . E9) used to elicit personal constructs of the effectiveness of appraisal systems. Theappraisal activities of interest for our purpose is element, E6, Designing or thinkingabout designing the appraisal system in the way you prefer. According to the cognitivemap, this element is located in the bottom left-hand quadrant (encircled). Respondentsdescribed their most preferred appraisal system with constructs (vector lines) whichincluded: the existence of adequate guidelines, can be measured, standards/guidelines

and measurements are clear, the system is objective, seen as important, people havecontrol, easy to understand, existence of feedback and participation, meaningful, notime wasted, tailored to help individuals develop and learn, and well prepared, interalia. These are the construct lines found in the same quadrant as the most preferredelement, E6. Furthermore, given the labelling of the two core perceptual dimensions(see Table III) we are also able to describe element E6 in terms of a system thatprovides its members a sense of ownership (Component 1), and one which can bemeasured (Component 2).

We can perform the same analysis with the other appraisal activities using thesetwo core perceptual dimensions as well as using the construct lines to describe howwell or how not well each appraisal activity is carried out in the respondentsorganizations.

Recommended strategies for manoeuvring for each appraisal system elementFigure 3 shows the aggregate cognitive map without the vector lines (construct lines)so that we can easily distinguish the location of each actual element from the preferred(E6). Given the labelling of the two core perceptual dimensions, we can systematicallyand analytically make recommendations for each appraisal activity to move in aspecific direction in order for each one to be perceived, in the eyes of the managers, aseffective. For example, element E5 (Carrying out the criteria and standards used to

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

221


17/25

appraise performance, which incidentally have been described as not useful, toogeneral and not focused, and does not add value), needs to move to the left of the mapand lower down the y-axis if it is to gain a higher degree of effectiveness. In otherwords, we want to move this core appraisal activity to the same location as element E6.

In that respect, E5 needs to provide employees with more ownership let them have asay in the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of such performancestandards/criteria used to appraise performance. At the same time, E5 can becomemore focused and measurable so that employees will find the system useful.

DiscussionPast cognitive research in performance appraisals has laid a solid foundation inallowing us to see what we have not been able to understand before about the raterscognitive perceptions on different aspects of the appraisal process (DeNisi, 1996;Feldman, 1981; Ilgen and Feldman, 1983; Landy and Farr, 1980). However, if cognitiveresearch in appraisal is to remain a vital force, it may need to look into more macro

issues such as relating human resources practices and systems to bigger issues of firmperformance (DeNisi, 1996, p. 186). The present study extends these past works byinvestigating managerial cognitions of performance management systems in theirentirety to document how practicing managers see, interpret and make sense of theirappraisal experiences, so that more effective appraisal systems are designed andmanaged in meeting the changing landscapes of the way we do business today.

Relative to the volumes of research on the mechanics of appraisals (Bretz et al., 1992;Fletcher, 2001; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995), not a great deal is known about whatmakes performance appraisal systems (in their entirety) effective (Wright, 2004a;Wright and Lam, 2002). While it is clear that certain groups of appraisal characteristicsremained constant over time (such as more need for objectivity, feedback, participation,involvement, etc.), the present study, using a cognitive mapping methodology, elicited

new constructs/perceptions of what constitutes an effective performance appraisalsystem.

Indeed, as expected, results showed that the core issues of feedback andparticipation, the need for employee involvement (ONeal and Palladino, 1992), theimportance of clearly identified standards/guidelines and measurements (Bobko andColella, 1994), objectivity, sense of ownership (Moravec, 1996), easy to understand(Gellerman and Hodgson, 1988), and links to business strategy (Imrie, 1995; Khatri,2000), all appeared quite prominently in managers perceptions of appraisal systemeffectiveness. These findings are very consistent with the documented literature (Bretzet al., 1992; Evans, 1991; Greenberg, 1986). However, new constructs expressed concernabout having more control within the appraisal system; a construct that had not beenfully introduced in past findings. This concern for control was ranked in the top five

most frequently cited constructs in the present study and reveals a deep-seatedcognition of all the managers interviewed in this research. Some of the individuallyelicited personal constructs (representing this collective construct) revealed a desire tobe able to set things in advance, under my control, more manageable, can influence, incommand, freedom to choose and to be able to do things according to ones ownpreferences within the appraisal system.

Similarly, tailored to help individual develop and learn also ranked within the topten frequently occurring collective constructs of appraisal system effectiveness.

PR36,2

222


18/25

Managers, in particular, described this super-ordinate construct as one whichconstituted issues of career development, is more forward-looking, job-related, tailoredto individual situations, clearly lays down expectations to help individuals achieve andlearn, and inevitably helps staff improve performance. Though development issues are

not new in appraisal system design, the elicited constructs in the present study presenta more articulated cognition of the way managers see their appraisal experience. Also,managers core super-ordinate constructs revealed a preference for appraisal systemsto be more challenging (that is, when appraisals are inter-related, stimulating and fun,and when they are carried out by the employees themselves); meaningful (initiated bythemselves, with some element of learning, involving feelings of being responsible forones own performance, clear on what is expected and offering the opportunity to haveones own say); and to inevitably add value (has strategic importance, is takenseriously, fits well into the company, is aligned to strategy and realistic, and is relatedto the business). Furthermore, a closer analysis of the elicited constructs through boththe cluster analysis and construct correlations generated from the grid techniqueprovided a deeper level of understanding about how managers frame theirtheories-in-use about performance management system effectiveness. The clustersand correlations provide for the very first time, the content and structure of appraisalsense making (Weick, 2001) used by practicing managers about the entire appraisalsystem. These findings provide new insights on how managers make cognitiveconnections between their own elicited constructs when making assessment of systemeffectiveness.

The current research also went beyond identifying new constructs of appraisalsystem effectiveness. For the very first time, practicing managers core perceptualdimensions were identified (in psychological space) regarding how they fundamentallyperceive and make sense of the effectiveness of performance management systems asthey experience them in organizational life. The Principal Component dimensions of

sense of ownership (x-axis) and can be measured (y-axis) tell us a great deal moreabout the way respondents make sense of and make judgements about their appraisalexperiences; which in turn dictates their selective personal constructions of how theyperceive individual appraisal system activities. Similarly, the elicited constructs alsoallowed the investigation to define (in a very systematic and rigorous way), howrespondents see effective performance management systems, using their own language(uncontaminated by researcher intrusion) (Wright, 2004a).

Implications for theory and practiceThe application of the repertory grid technique proved to be a very powerfulinvestigative tool (Jankowicz, 1990, 2004; Marsden and Littler, 2000; Swan, 1997). Themethod allowed us to go deep into the mental psyche of real managers in real settings

in a highly systematic and rigorous way, while simultaneously maintaining a strictadherence to codes that minimise researcher intrusion. By venturing deep intomanagers construct systems of the way they see their appraisal worlds, the presentinvestigation was able to establish a better understanding of their current experienceswith appraisals in their entirety. This in turn opens up new insights into howeffectively or ineffectively elements of appraisal systems are being carried out inorganizational life. This finding, in and of itself, has wider implications in the study,practice and research of this phenomenon. Also for the very first time, the identification

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

223


19/25

of the core perceptual dimensions of appraisal system effectiveness sheds new light onwhat is at the heart of employees desires in an effective system. Furthermore, the mereidentification of the perceptual dimensions raises the questions of whether suchdimensions change over time and whether it may be possible to compare the perceptual

dimensions of different groups of people, organizations, and national cultures on theeffectiveness of performance management systems. Another theoretical implication ofthe present study is the possibility of generating a tailor-made appraisal systemquestionnaire using (some of the 496) elicited bi-polar constructs as semanticdifferentials. Indeed, a databank with a wide repertory of questionnaire items can beused to formulate a survey using the language of the intended respondents, rather thanfrom measures tried and test from different time periods, contextual settings andpurposes (Borman and Vallon, 1974; Spector, 1994).

When the results of the study were fed back to managers, one common theme stoodout. The visual cognitive map and cluster diagrams were easy to understand andexplain. Managers were most impressed with the simplicity of the visual results. At thesame time, the diagrams provided valuable and insightful data on how organizationalmembers perceived their appraisal experiences in relation to their desired system (E6).The presentation of results also opened up further discussion with the respondents onwhat needs to be done to each appraisal activity (element) in order for it to be perceivedby its users as effective (Bretz et al., 1992; Longnecker and Nykodym, 1996; Murphyand Cleveland, 1995).

Limitations of the studyThe focus of our study centred round managerial cognitions of performancemanagement systems. In particular we were especially interested to elicit howorganizational members see, make sense of and interpret their everyday appraisalsystem experiences. A such, our decision to narrow down (and supply) the range of

appraisal activities to nine core elements may appear to be influencing respondentsown construing about appraisals and appraisal systems. Appraisal researchers mayargue that there are more issues about performance management system that couldhave been included in our study to provide a more encompassing coverage of thesubject matter. Whilst we are fully aware of this view, we stand firmly based upon ourreview of the literature and feedback from practicing managers that the nine appraisalsystem elements used in the present investigation represented a true and fair view ofthe four-corners of a typical appraisal system. And as the aim of our investigation wasto gauge (for the first time) the managerial cognitions of appraisal systemeffectiveness, we believe this has been achieved with both rigor and relevance(Anderson et al., 2001). Furthermore, although the supplying of appraisal systemelements for construct elicitation does impose a degree of researcher intrusion into the

study (see Wright and Lam, 2002), we needed to do this as part of the guiding principlewhen one grid interview is to be compared to another (Stewart and Stewart, 1981,called for either the elements or the constructs to be kept constant across interviews).

Administering the repertory grid technique (an average of two hours for each gridparticipant) resulted in a huge investment in time. This may pose a burden topracticing managers, given time constraints and budget deadlines. Also, only onehundred managers were interviewed to elicit their cognitive perceptions of appraisalsystem effectiveness. Although the sample size may be considered small in comparison

PR36,2

224


20/25

to more traditional questionnaire sample pools, the data elicited from the gridinterviews were indeed rich and insightful (Gephart, 2004). In fact, in grid terms, asample size of one hundred is considered quite a significantly large number already!Nevertheless, we caution researchers against generalizing the results of the study to

other settings and sample categories. The present studys interview respondents camefrom different industries to gauge an across-the-board general state of appraisalsystem perceptions. As such, generalizing the findings into any particular industry orgroup of employees may be left until more in-depth studies have been carriedout/replicated inside a particular industry, company or country (Entrekin and Chung,2001; Fraser and Zarkada-Fraser, 2001; Paik et al., 2000; Snape et al., 1998).

Where to from here?The unique application of a clinical cognitive methodology (repertory grid technique)allowed the present study to systematically and rigorously venture deep into theknowledge structures of how practicing managers construed their appraisal worlds,and hence their perceptions of what constituted effective performance management

systems. Several noteworthy findings were revealed through the richness of datacollected and analysed. Of particular concern for both research and practice is thatappraisals and appraisal systems keep abreast of changing paradigms of the wayorganizations function, and more importantly, that the success of appraisal systems begauged through the cognitive perceptions held by the very people who carry them out(Feldman, 1986; Fletcher, 2001; Hodgkinson, 2003; Ilgen and Feldman, 1983; Murphyand Cleveland, 1995; Sadler-Smith, 1998). In this respect, we hope this study also opensup new questions for future research in this direction.

References

Adams-Webber, J.R. (1989), Some reflections on the meaning of repertory grid responses,

International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 77-92.Allan, P. (1994), Designing and implementing an effective performance appraisal system,

Review of Business, Vol. 16 No. 2, p. 3 .

Anderson, N., Herriot, P. and Hodgkinson, G.P. (2001), The practitioner-researcher divide inindustrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: where are we now and where do wego from here?,Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 391-411.

Bernardin, H.J. and Beatty, R. (1984), Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior atWork, Kent Wadsworth, Boston, MA.

Bernardin, H.J. and Pence, E.C. (1980), Effects of rater error training: creating new response setsand decreasing accuracy, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 60-6.

Bernardin, H.J., Cardy, R.L. and Carlyle, J.J. (1982), Cognitive complexity and appraisaleffectiveness: back to the drawing board?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67,

pp. 151-60.

Blowers, G.H. and OConnor, K.P.O. (1996), Personal Construct Psychology in the Clinical Context,University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa.

Bobko, P. and Colella, A. (1994), Employee reactions to performance standards: a review andresearch proposition, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 1-30.

Borman, W.C. (1987), Personal constructs, performance schemata and folk theories ofsubordinate effectiveness: explorations in an army officer sample, Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 40, pp. 307-22.

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

225


21/25

Borman, W.C. and Vallon, W.R. (1974), A view of what can happen when behavioral

expectations scales are developed in one setting and used in another, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 59, pp. 197-201.

Bougon, M.G. (1992), Congregate cognitive maps: a unified dynamic theory of organisation and

strategy, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 367-89.

Bretz, R.D. Jr, Milkovich, G.T. and Read, W. (1992), The current state of performance appraisal

research and practice: concerns, directions, and implications, Journal of Management,Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 321-52.

Carson, K.P., Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1991), Performance appraisals as effective

management or deadly management disease, Group & Organization Studies, Vol.16 No. 2,pp. 143-59.

Centre for Person Computer Studies (1993), RepGrid 2 Manual, Centre for Person ComputerStudies, University of Calgary, Calgary.

Clement, R.W. and Stevens, G.E. (1986), The performance appraisal interview: what, when, and

how?, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 43-59.

DDI (1994), Dimension International and The Society for Human Resources ManagementPerformance Management: whats hot whats not, Compensation & Benefits Review,Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 71-7.

Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

DeNisi, A.S. (1996), A Cognitive Approach to Performance Appraisal, Routledge, New York, NY.

DeNisi, A.S., Cafferty, T.P. and Meglino, B.M. (1984), A cognitive view of the performance

appraisal process: a model and research proposition, Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, Vol. 33, pp. 360-96.

Dipboye, R.L. and de Pontbriand, R. (1981), Correlates of employee reactions to performance

appraisals and appraisal systems, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 248-51.

Dunn, W.N., Pavlak, T.J. and Roberts, G.E. (1987), Cognitive performance appraisal mapping

mangers category structures using the grid technique, Personnel Review, Vol. 16 No. 3,pp. 16-19.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Holman, D. (1996), Using repertory grids in management,

Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 3-30.

Entrekin, L. and Chung, Y.W. (2001), Attitudes towards different sources of executive appraisal:

a comparison of Hong Kong Chinese and American managers in Hong Kong,

International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 965-87.

Erez, M., Earley, P.C. and Hulin, C.L. (1985), The impact of participation on goal acceptance and

performance: a two-step model, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 50-66.

Evans, E. (1991), Designing an effective performance management system, Journal ofCompensation and Benefits, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 25-9.

Farh, J.L., Dobbins, G.H. and Cheng, B.S. (1991), Cultural relativity in action: a comparison ofself-ratings made by Chinese and US workers, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1,pp. 129-47.

Feldman, J.M. (1981), Beyond attribution theory: cognitive processes in performance appraisal,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 127-48.

Feldman, J.M. (1986), Instrumentation and training for performance appraisal: a perceptual

cognitive viewpoint, in Rowland, K. and Ferris, J. (Eds), Research in Personnel andHuman Resources Management, Vol. 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

PR36,2

226


22/25

Fisher, C.D. (1979), Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: a laboratory

investigation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 533-40.

Fletcher, C. (2001), Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda,

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 473-87.

Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977), A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique, Academic Press,London.

Fraser, C. and Zarkada-Fraser, A. (2001), Perceptual polarization of managerial performance

from a human resource management perspective, International Journal of HumanResource Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 256-69.

Gellerman, S.W. and Hodgson, W.G. (1988), Cyanamids new take on performance appraisal,

Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 36-41.

Gephart, R.P. (2004), From the editors: qualitative research and the Academy of Management

Journal, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 454-62.

Greenberg, J. (1986), Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 340-2.

Grote, D. (1996), The Complete Guide to Performance Appraisals, Amacom, New York, NY.

Hartle, F. (1995), How to Re-engineer Your Performance Management Process, Kogan Page,London.

Hind, P. and Baruch, Y. (1997), Gender variations in perceptions of performance appraisal,

Women in Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 276-89.

Hodgkinson, G.P. (2003), The interface of cognitive and industrial, work and organizational

psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 1-25.

Huselid, M.A. (1995), The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity and corporate financial performance, Academy of Management Journal,

Vol. 38, pp. 635-72.

Ilgen, D.R. and Feldman, J.M. (1983), Performance appraisal: a process focus, Research inOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 141-97.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, S.M. (1979), Consequences of individual feedback on

behavior in organization, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 347-71.

Imrie, B.W. (1995), Performance planning, appraisal and development, paper presented at the

Institutions Management in Higher Education (IMHE) Seminar on Human Resources and

Staff Development in Higher Education, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong,

pp. 1-18.

IRRR (1994a), Improving performance? A survey on appraisal arrangements, IRRR, Vol. 556,March, pp. 5-14.

IRRR (1994b), Performance appraisal assessed, IRRR, Vol. 559, May, pp. 6-11.

Jankowicz, A.D. (1990), Applications of personal construct psychology in business practice,

Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 257-87.

Jankowicz, A.D. (2004), The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Khatri, N. (2000), Managing human resource for competitive advantage: a study of companies in

Singapore, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 336-65.

Kelly, G. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 1, Norton, New York, NY.

Kotter, J. and Hesketh, J. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press, New York, NY.

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

227


23/25

Landy, F.J. and Farr, J.L. (1980), Performance rating, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 87 No. 1,pp. 72-107.

Lane, J. and Herriot, P. (1990), Self-rating, supervisor ratings, positions and performance,Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 77-89.

Latham, G.P. and Steele, T.P. (1983), The motivational effects of participation versus goalsetting on performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 406-17.

Latham, G.P. and Yukl, G.A. (1976), Effects of assigned and participative goal setting ofperformance and job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 166-71.

Laumeyer, J. and Beebe, T. (1988), Employees and their appraisal: how do workers feel about thecompany grading scale?, Personnel Administrator, December, pp. 76-80.

Longnecker, C.O. and Goff, S.J. (1992), Performance appraisal effectiveness: a matter ofperspective, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 17-23.

Longnecker, C.O. and Nykodym, N. (1996), Public sector performance appraisal effectiveness: acase study, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 151-65.

Malilnauskas, B.K. and Clement, R.W. (1987), Performance appraisals interviewing for

tangible results, Training & Development Journal, February, pp. 74-9.Marsden, D. and Littler, D. (2000), Repertory grid technique: an interpretative research

framework, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 816-34.

Martin, D.C. and Bartol, K.M. (1998), Performance appraisal: maintaining system effectiveness,Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 223-31.

Meyer, H.H. (1991), A solution to the performance appraisal feedback enigma, Academy ofManagement Executive, Vol. 5, pp. 68-76.

Meyer, H.H., Kay, E. and French, J.R.P. Jr (1965), Split roles in performance appraisal, 21143,Harvard Business Review Classics Reprints: Performance Appraisal Series,January-February, pp. 81-7.

Moravec, M. (1996), Bringing performance management out of the stone age, ManagementReview, February, pp. 38-42.

Mount, M.K. (1983), Comparisons of managerial and employee satisfaction with a performanceappraisal system, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 98-110.

Mount, M.K. (1984), Satisfaction with performance appraisal system and appraisal discussion,Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 271-9.

Murphy, K.J. (1993), Performance measurement and appraisal: Merck tries to motivatemanagers to do it right, Employment Relations Today, Spring, pp. 47-62.

Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,Organizational, and Goal-Base Perspectives, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

ONeal, S. and Palladino, M. (1992), Revamp ineffective performance management, PersonnelJournal, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 93-102.

Orpen, C. (1997), Performance appraisal techniques, task types and effectiveness: a contingency

approach, Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 139-48.

Paik, Y., Vance, C.M. and Stage, H.D. (2000), A test of assumed cluster homogeneity forperformance appraisal management in four southeast Asian countries, International

Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 736-50.

Pearce, J.L. and Porter, L.W. (1986), Employee responses to formal performance appraisalfeedback, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 211-8.

Phillips, K.R. (1987), Red flags in performance appraisals, Training and Development Journal,March, pp. 80-2.

PR36,2

228


24/25

Pooyan, A. and Eberhardt, B.J. (1989), Correlates of performance appraisal satisfaction among

supervisory and non-supervisory employees, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 19,pp. 215-26.

Roberts, G.E. (1996), A case study in performance appraisal system development: lessons from a

municipal police department, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 361-85.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1998), Cognitive style: some human resource implications for managers,

International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 185-202.

Schay, B.W. (1993), In search of the Holy Grail: lessons in performance management,

Public Personnel Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 649-69.

Schweiger, I. and Sumners, G.E. (1994), Optimizing the value of performance appraisals,

Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 3-7.

Senior, B. (1996), Team performance: using repertory grid technique to gain a view from the

inside, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 26-32.

Slater, P. (1977), The reliability and significance of a grid, Dimensions of Intrapersonal Space:

The Measurement of Intrapersonal Space by Grid Technique, Vol. 2, Chapter 10, p. 10.Smith, D.E. (1986), Training programs for performance appraisal, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 11, pp. 2-40.

Smith, H.J. (2000), The reliability and validity of structural measures derived from repertory

grids, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 221-30.

Snape, E., Thompson, D., Yan, K-C.F. and Redman, T. (1998), Performance appraisal and

culture: practice and attitudes in Hong Kong and Great Britain, International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 841-61.

Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a

controversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 385-92.

Stewart, V. and Stewart, A. (1981), Business Applications of Repertory Grid, McGraw-Hill,

London.Stivers, B.P. and Joyce, T. (2000), Building a balanced performance management system,

SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 22-9.

Swan, J. (1997), Using cognitive mapping in management research: decisions about technical

innovation, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 183-98.

Weick, K.E. (2001), Making Sense of the Organization, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Wherry, R.J. and Bartlett, C.J. (1982), The control of bias in ratings: a theory of rating,PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 35, pp. 521-55.

Wright, R.P. (2004a), Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioralresponses in appraisal research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3,pp. 339-74.

Wright, R.P. (2004b), Top managers strategic cognitions of the strategy making process:differences between high and low performing firms, Journal of General Management,Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 61-78.

Wright, R.P. and THC (1999), Performance management systems: lessons learned over the

years, Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 16-25.

Wright, R.P. and Lam, S.S.K. (2002), Comparing apples with apples: the importance of element

wording in grid applications, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2,pp. 109-19.

Appraisalsystem

effectiveness

229


25/25

Further reading

Latham, G.P. and Yukl, G.A. (1975), Assigned versus participative goal setting with educatedand uneducated woods workers, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 299-302.

About the authorsRobert P. Wright is Assistant Professor of Human Resources and Strategic Management at theDepartment of Management & Marketing of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HongKong. His research interest investigates mapping managerial and organizational cognitions inthe areas of strategy and human resource management. He is the corresponding author and canbe contacted at: [email protected]

Frenda K.K. Cheung is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behaviour and HumanResource Management in the same department. Her major research interests are in strategichuman resources management and cross cultural conflict management.

PR36,2

230

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

articulating appraisal system

Documents