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

The Nature of Subordinate Participation in the Appraisal Interview^
MARTIN M. GRELLER Rohrer, Hibler, and Replogle, Inc.

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

French. goal setting.. 287 replies (90. in which case the moderation found in the Hillery and Ronan studies may be an artifact of the facets of participation studied. Starting with the items used in previous research (Greller. Wexley et al. Finally. and Meyer (1966) found that even when managers agreed in advance to run a participative or nonparticipative appraisal interview. 1977). 1975). STUDY 1—METHODOLOGY Sample Questionnaires were collected from 317 employees in both trust and operations areas of a large urban commercial bank. the author worked with the bank's staff to produce a broad range of statements to describe the appraisal interview. Because some people within the sample had not been appraised within the last year or failed to answer one or more questions about the nature of the appraisal interview. Characteristics of the Appraisal In the first section of the questionnaire. 1973). There is also some question as to how much volitional control a manager actually has over the amount of participation that occurs in an appraisal interview. An unexamined possibility is that the different facets of participation serve different functions within an appraisal interview. The study was coordinated through the bank's organizational development and training departments. 1975. Kay.g. the factors of participation are examined to see if variables known to affect participation (e.5 percent) were used for the present study. and supervisor's management style) have the same impact across all factors. it was quite difficult for them to act in opposition to their basic tendencies toward subordinate participation.1978 Grelter 647 interview decompose into several facets which differ in their relationships to satisfaction and motivation (Greller. Administrations of the questionnaire were supervised by either the author or a member of the bank's organizational development department. The purpose of the present study is to inductively identify the factors representing the different types of participation that may be experienced in the appraisal interview. they are studied to see if they are associated with appraisal outcomes and if that association differs for the different factors. participants were asked to rate a series of statements on how well each described their most recent appraisal interview. job tenure. Once such factors have been identified. however actual practice varied widely within the bank. Nemeroff & Wexley. Included . 1975. Questionnaires were administered at several locations within the bank during working hours. Other work has suggested that the most potent facets of participatioti in the appraisal interview are also those most apt to be related to overall management style (Greller. The bank was operating under an appraisal system inspired by management by objectives (MBO).

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

" The third leadership measure was hierarchical influence. Pfiffner. The factor labelled ownership emerged first in subsample T and second in the other subsample. RESULTS Factorial Representation A principal components analysis with estimates of communalities in the diagonals and VARIMAX rotation was used to identify the most reasonable way of reducing the 19 participation items and the three dealing with valence of evaluation." and "The boss insists that subordinates follow standard ways of doing things in every detail." "The boss 'needles' subordinates for greater effort. The subordinates indicated that their thoughts were welcomed and that those topics which they felt required attention were ad- . 1954. "The boss rules with an iron hand." and "The boss tries to keep those employed under him/ her in good standing with those higher in authority. Harold. The items loading on this factor are descriptive of what the review was like and indicate an acceptance of responsibility by the subordinate. These criteria were best met by a three-factor solution.69." "The boss is easy to understand. Six items." The interitem rehability for consideration is . Wigdor. The measure had an interitem reliability of . & High. The primary criteria were (a) that clear." "The boss criticizes subordinates in front of others. The solution presented in Table 1 identifies two types of participation and one indication of the valence of the appraisal." "The boss changes subordinates' duties without first talking it over with them. with a reliability of . Job tenure was measured by the number of months the participant reported being in his or her present position. Interpretations are based on items which load clearly and highly on the same factor in both subsamples. Eight items were used to measure consideration. were used to measure initiation of structure.61 for this sample. measuring the degree to which the subordinate perceives the supervisor as having control over organizational rewards and resources (Comrey." and "The boss refuses to explain his/her actions. "The boss treats people without consideration for their feelings." Four negative items were reverse coded." "The boss emphasizes the quantity of work. The sample was divided in half to allow a demonstration of replicability." "The boss criticizes poor work. 1969)." "The boss expresses appreciation when one of us does a good job." "The boss talks about how much should be done. discernible factors result which (b) could be interpreted and (c) could be replicated. Consideration and initiation of structure were measured using the items which loaded most heavily across all three samples in Szilagyi and Sims' (1974) study.1978 Greller 649 Manager^s Style Three traditional leader attributes were assessed.78. four were positive instances: "The boss stands up for us even if it makes him/her unpopular. 1974.

O r-- ij-i — <i-i O o — rj o •Hi II o o o o — — — on — IJ ifi u-1 >c — 00 oo O O r-t < O (N — — N " t St .650 Academy of Management Journal O Tt in O O O C O M December '.

.5&*** .18* .09 -. who did most of the talking.04 . The third factor is composed of two items reflecting criticism of the subordinate's performance. contributions. The most obvious form of participation. TABLE 2 Standardized Beta Weights for Eacli of the Three Appraisal Characteristics Regressed on Each of the Appraisal Reactions for the Bank Sample Appraisal Characteristic Reaction Utility Satisfaction Anxiety Derogation * P < .. 1975). fault finding is independent of the two types of participation.23 Ownership .1978 Greller 651 dressed. This is consistent with previous work which suggests that what one talks about in an appraisal is more important than how much time one spends saying it (Greller.g.52*** Contribution . The individual makes suggestions or senses that there was an impact on the boss. focuses more on actions or effects. The subordinates also indicated that their work was praised by the boss. the question of who causes issues to be addressed is irrelevant (e. it is also not simply the opposite of praise. the next question is what effect do these have on reaction to the appraisal? To examine this question. Each of the models has a significant multiple correlation and in each the relationship is a function of ownership and criticism.31*** . those items which clearly loaded on a factor for both subsamples were given a unit weight and averaged to produce the individual's score for that factor.52*** -. A central emphasis of contributions is the subordinate's being the source of influence (e. NemerofE & Wexley. The regression of the three characteristics on each of the four reactions is presented in Table 2. Effects of Participation Having identified three factors which represent participation in the appraisal interview and the valence of evaluation.08 . 1977).g.15* -. Apparently.23** -.001 R 43*** '.05 ** p < .01 * * * p < .19** .48*** Criticism . items 6 and 8 ) : for ownership. one for each of the subsamples.38*** . 1975. Influence can be on future assignments. The next factor. or the actual content of the appraisal interview itself. Unit weighting provides a stable model (Einhorn & Hogarth. does not load on any of the three factors. the alternative of using factor scores would be misleading as the scores would be based on two different analyses. item 4). goals. and in this case.22** .

Regressions of the appraisal factors on each of the appraisal reactions were computed separately for long and short-tenure employees. criticism is not significantly associated with reduction in the amount of influence attributed to the supervisor. the only significant weight is the one associated with the use of previously set objective (b = . Second.08. The independent effect of subordinate contributions is not significant. However. The difference in beta weights was then tested.05). There were no significant differences between senior and junior employees in the models for perceived utility or anxiety. To examine the robustness of these findings. criticism is positively related to perceived usefulness. „. however these do not improve the models significantly.^ ^^'^ 1° question whether the criteria used to divide the sample really produced "junior" and "senior" groups. The model for utility accounts for 12.652 Academy of Management Journal December Ownership is associated with greater satisfaction and perceived usefulness and with lower levels of anxiety and derogation. less than one year. however.17.p < . a distortion which would reduce the risk attendant upon criticism from a powerful supervisor. has the highest correlations with both consideration and hierarchical influence.05) and less anxiety (b = —.35. f = 33. ownership is more strongly associated with satisfaction for older workers than for younger ones (t — 1. the relevant correlations are approximately the same regardless of whether "juniors" are defined as those with less than two years. T'he independent effects of ownership and criticism cease to be significant in this expanded regression on utility. Unexpectedly. nor do they produce substantial change in the weights of the other variable. ownership. In only one instance did this result in a significant change of R. Relationship to Leader Characteristics Table 3 presents correlations which support the notion that appraisal style is related to management style.F. The rcsulls are fairly stable wiih regard to the exact placement of the dividing line.9 percent more variance when the two additional measures are included. This result is consistent with the Hillery and Wexley finding.05). p < .68.001). Moderating Effects of Job Tenure The sample was trichotomized based on the individual's job tenure. .' '.5. p < . goal setting and use of goals were forced into the regression equations. it is the only instance in which job tenure moderates the effects of participation. F = 4. taking those with the longest job tenure (in excess of 39 months) and those with the least tenure (less than 24 months). First. Two findings are of particular interest. which was shown to have the strongest relationship to appraisal reactions. the size of the sample drops substantially. For example.22. ^^. In the model for separate subsamples. p < . The setting of goals is associated with greater satisfaction (b = .53. or half a year's experience on the job.

The effects of both the setting and use of goals in the appraisal are moderated by job tenure.24** --OS The effects of criticism are moderated by job tenure in two instances. .76). 1975). with aspirations of mobility.001 Consideration (n = 265) ^S** .46** -.22** Structure (n = 262) ^6 —03 ^9 Influence (n = 280) ^6^ .06. Use of previously set goals in the appraisal results in greater satisfaction and less derogation by the experienced workers but not for the newer employees (z = 2.02) based on Blood's (1969) measure. The moderation by job tenure is not explained by differences in the management of senior workers. this difference was reflected more in the reactions to goal setting and use than to participation. These findings run contrary to the suggestion of Maier (1973) that junior workers will be more inclined to accept criticism.O5). This finding may be explained by the alternate sources of information available to the experienced worker (Greller & Herold. an individual new at the job. may require different things from an appraisal interview than one who has held the job longer and expects to remain in it. Work orientation did not differ as a function of job tenure (r = —.01 **p<. Consistent with the reasoning of Hillery and Wexley (1974). However. more senior workers being more apt to state that they would be satisfied to remain in their present job for the duration of their career (r = . The only factors found to vary with tenure were the employees' age and willingness to remain in their present job.06 with structure. and the relationship of goal setting to the feeling that the appraisal was useful is reduced for those with less time on the job (z — 2.02 with hierarchical influence). The correlations between job tenure and leader characteristics were all nonsignificant (. The setting of goals is correlated with satisfaction for those with long job tenure but not for the junior people (z = 2. p <.15).95. p <.O5) and to derogate the appraisal (t = 2. and —./i <.24 and z = 2.1978 Greller 653 TABLE 3 Correlations Between Appraisal Characteristics Supervisor Characteristic Appraisal Characteristics ContribuUon Ownership Criticism * P < .OO1).23. Junior workers showed a greater propensity to become dissatisfied in the face of criticism (t — 1.07 respectively).02 with consideration. STUDY 2—METHODOLOGY The results of the first study challenge some of the simpler prescriptions that have been provided managers on the best way to run an appraisal .

goal use (. satisfaction (. The distinction between being "quite critical" and "viewing performance as less than satisfactory"' (items used in the criticism measure) was one to which every member of this organization was sensitive at the time of the study. The results are similar to those for the bank (Table 2) with several exceptions. A small engineering R & D firm situated in a rural area was revising its appraisal procedures and practices. and utility (.75). The effect of criticism. however.76). contribution (. Difficulty with criticism was one of the factors that led the firm to consider revising its appraisal procedure. Further. Goal setting was still associated with greater satisfaction (b = . reflecting the difference in sample size. Whether this diminution is due to a substantive difference in the nature of criticism between the two organizations or simply reflects the lack of stability in the measure for the R & D sample cannot be determined. The weak relationships previously identified with anxiety now drop below the 5 percent level of significance. Another difference between the samples is that here the goal setting and goal use measures do not render the effects of ownership nonsignificant when forced into the regression on utility. Since one may be tempted to discount the results as unique to the particular sample or the banking industry. F = 5.58). Questionnaires concerning the appraisal were collected from 31 employees (everyone in the organization who had been appraised and was at work during the period of administration).24).68. RESULTS Table 4 contains the standardized beta weights for the three appraisal characteristics regressed on each of the four appraisal reactions. anxiety (. is no longer substantial.O5. The low interitem reliability for criticism is distressing. .654 Academy of Management Journal December interview.58). p <. significant in the analysis for the bank. The difference may be due to goals having no special place in the R & D firm's personnel or management procedures. which are the same as used in the bank. in the context of the particular organization it does make sense. The data of concern here are the measures of appraisal characteristics and reactions to the appraisal. criticism (. But overall. The reliabilities were as follows: ownership (.). The firm had been using an appraisal form resembling the Oflicer Fitness Reports but were unsatisfied as the evaluations were either meaninglessly high or else managers felt they were committing themselves to unwarranted criticism of the subordinate. both managers and subordinates viewed the appraisal review as an event which should primarily promote developmental discussions. To provide such verification a second study was conducted in a quite different organization using the factors identified in the first study.74).65). derogation (. goal setting (. a purpose not well served by the existing procedures.68).54. goals played a less important role in the R & D sample. it is important to corroborate the basic findings.79).

an organization which emphasized goal setting.36 J2 ^4^ —U -. There is no guarantee that the same behaviors will produce a sense of ownership across subordinates in all situations.02 . what does? Just what sort of a construct is "ownership"? It may not be far removed from what others have labelled "psychological participation" (e. goal setting was consistently associated with satisfaction. In addition. DISCUSSION The most striking finding is that those measures of appraisal behavior which are most specific and most closely match the actions prescribed for managers have the least effect. . An important task for future research is to examine the interaction of situational and interpersonal variables as they affect ownership. As a consequence. it seems unlikely that simplistic changes of manager behavior in the interview would help. even where the effects of criticism and goal setting were controlled. Contributions were found to be less strongly associated with positive appraisal outcomes than was ownership.19 —81* ^7 .. The variables dealing with goal setting and use in the appraisal interview were included to check the robustness of the participation findings. Future work on the appraisal interview should take care to consider the interaction of goal variables with participation and other contextual factors.66 .g. 1973).70* -. The notion of meeting needs would imply that the effectiveness of a manager's behavior can only be judged relative to the needs with which the subordinate enters the situation. Specific behaviors are so loosely linked to each other that they neither produce an independent factor nor load on factors with other descriptions of the appraisal interview.001 ^6 . Wexley et al. the use of goals in the evaluation was associated with both utility and satisfaction in the bank. If neither simple behaviors nor influence by the subordinate (as reflected in contributions) predict favorable outcome in the appraisal interview. the basic finding was replicated. for ownership involves being welcomed and feeling that what needed to be done was done.15 ^5 ~ ^3* ..1978 Greller 655 TABLE 4 Sfnadardized Beta Weights for the Three Appraisal Characteristics Regressed on the Appraisal Reactions for the R & D Sample Appraisal Reaction Appraisal Characteristic R Contribution Ownership Criticism Utility Satisfaction Anxiety Derogation * p < . While ownership was little affected by these measures.21 -0^ Despite the radical difference between the two research sites.

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

Participation was found to be effective when presenting a "low threat" (positive) evaluation where the manager was customarily participative. . Unlike the present studies. For example. 1966). the high participation condition seems to foster the kind of relationship associated with ownership of the appraisal. The observers recorded behaviors associated with participation. perhaps participation did not occur. . p. ". when participation was used in a "high threat" (critical) review with a manager who was not usually participative. which minimizes threat. CONCLUSIONS The key factor associated with positive results from an appraisal interview is the creation of a sense of ownership or psychological participation. but they did not report "ownership. Kay. & Meyer. Consider the description of their high participative condition (Wexley et al. These raters observed participative behavior. Yet. 1973. the effects were negative (French." Mutual goal setting was also included as a part of this treatment. the results were subject to qualification. non-directive. even in those interviews where its effect was adverse. and conveys a sense of caring and consideration. A review of the way in which participation was operationalized suggests that much more than behavioral participation changed across conditions. A second example is the experimental study of Wexley et al. leading to the conclusion that participation failed to have its effect under adverse circumstances. even in the widely cited instance of the General Electric studies (Meyer. (1973) in which participative appraisal interview strategies were found to improve the outcome of the appraisal. 55).1978 Greller 657 Specific behaviors and the one which most closely approximates ownership. & French. open-ended questions to encourage the subordinate to express his ideas and feelings about solutions to problems. These results obtained using both supervisor and subordinate ratings. limits direct criticism. The results of the present studies suggest another interpretation. Reexamination of Earlier Studies Saying that simple "participative" behaviors are not related to positive appraisal outcomes seems to disagree with earlier research. A possible consequence of this treatment is to begin building a relationship between the two previously unacquainted participants. . creates a sense of acceptance." It is hard to imagine ownership existing in the appraisal interview where the manager behaves in a manner inconsistent with his customary management style while delivering a critical appraisal. Kay. Tn addition to providing the subject an opportunity for self expression. 1965). a closer reading of the literature which led to the expectation that participation has a simple and straightforward effect shows that the relationship is neither simple nor straightforward. French and associates used independent raters to observe how participative the interviews were..

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.