Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: A Case Study Performance appraisal usage is expanding in public sector organizations across the US. Organizations employ the formal appraisal process with the belief that it provides them with. ‘host of potential human resource benefits. In this study, 254 members of alarge public sector organization were surveyed to assess the degree to which the organization’ formal perform- ance appraisal system was perceived as being effective in serving functions typically associated with the appraisal process. In addition, differences in manager/subordinate perceptions were analyzed and suggestions for improving the appraisal process were solicited. This research demonstrates that a properly developed appraisal process can serve both managers and. subordinates in a number of important areas. At the same time, several critical functions of the appraisal process were found tobe less than effective. A discussion of the implications of these findings to both academics and practitioners is included. By Clinton O. Longenecker Nick Nykodym jon O Longenecker, PAD. Stranahan Professor of Management in the Graduate Scho of Business ‘ministration atthe University of Tole. His rescareh interests incl human resource management, organizational development ane continuous limprovement. Heian active ‘manogervent consultant and ‘xceutive educator specliigin negating ‘anagement, teamwork and Ieaderthip practices to reste ‘compete advantage Performance appraisal is perceived to be a critical human resource management function in most organizations in the U.S. Research estimates that cover 90% of all large private sector organizations in this country employ some form of systematic employee appraisal and review.' At the same time, the number of public sector organizations employing the formal appraisal process continues to steadily increase.” This article will explore the potential benefits and problems associated with performance appraisal in the public sector and discuss ways to improve this pervasive practic In recent years, widespread attention has been paid to the role of the formal appraisal process because of the belief that an effectively designed and implemented appraisal system can provide the employee, the manager, and the organization with a host of positive benefits. The literature on performance appraisal generally concludes that the appraisal process can: 1) provide man- agers with a useful communication tool for employee goal setting and perform- ance planning; 2) increase employee motivation and productivity; 3) facilitate discussions concerning employee growth and development; 4) provide a solid basis for wage and salary administration; and 5) provide data for a host of human resource decisions.* The problems associated with the design, implementation, and operation of formal performance appraisal systems are well documented, and they con- tinue to frustrate both academics and practitioners alike. Researchers have concluded that there is no such thing as an “ideal” appraisal format and system. Every organization must design an appraisal instrument and process that supports the organizational goals that it wishes to accomplish.‘ In addition, Public Personnel Management Volume 25 No. 2 (Summer, 1996) 151 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Nick Nykody i Professor of uate Management inthe School of Busines University of Toledo. His research inerest one varied Sd include acer evelopment, stress management, Transactional [nal and pubic secon snanagement fe has Consulted witha wie var of organizations in the ares ‘st onganizational ‘evelopment mec ting and static participant acceptance of an organization's performance appraisal system is perceived to be a critical factor in appraisal eff 7 veness. Further research suggests that having a technically sound appraisal sys- tem and procedure is no guarantee that an organization’ s appraisal process will be effective.® Managers and subordinates must have a shared perception of the purposes and functions of the process and the belief that the appraisal process is useful to them on an individual basis.’ To this end, an effective appraisal system is one that satisfies the needs of the parties involved in the process.® In addition, an effective appraisal system requires that managers not only have the skills necessary to conduct the appraisals, but also the willingness to do so.” Serious questions have been raised concerning the functions actually served by the appraisal process.'° Are formal appraisals worth all the time and effort devoted to them? What do public sector organizations actually accom- plish in conducting formal appraisals? The functions effectively served by the appraisal process are a source of continuing debate as academics seek to better tand the appraisal process while practitioners seek wa s to increase Research has found that employees react more favorably to the appraisal process when it satisfied their needs and included an opportunity to state their position; when factors on which they were being evaluated were job-related; and when objectives and plans were discussed openly.'! Managers and subor- dinates do not always agree on what constitutes an effective appraisal. When managers and subordinates have a shared understanding of the purpose of the appraisal as well as each party's role in the appraisal, the subordinate’s, acceptance of the appraisal is increased.'? Both research and organizational practice suggest, however, that manag ers and subordinates have different needs and expectations regarding the appraisal event. Research strongly indicates that the manager’s (rater) purpose, intentions, and perceptions of the rating process may differ significantly from those of the subordinate (ratee).'? In a recent study conducted in a medium- sized organization, researchers found that managers and subordinates differed gnificantly in their perceptions of both the role and effectiveness of the appraisal process on such key issues as: the purpose of the appraisal process: the level of faimess; the link between pay and performance: honesty of communication; completeness of feedback; means to improve the manager- subordinate relationship; and the extent to which an appraisal lets subordinates know where they stand.'* The overall effectiveness of the apprai process, received mixed reviews. 152 Public Personnel Management Volume 25 No. 2 (Summer, 1996) a ree ee eae ee re eeResearch concludes that it is critically important for managers and their subordinates to have shared perceptions surrounding the performance appraisal event both in terms of its intended purpose and process. When the needs of either party are not being met, the effectiveness of the appraisal process is in jeopardy. Yet, surprisingly there is little research in this aspect of appraisal effectiveness in public sector organizations despite the expanded use of this, practice, In light of this information, a basic question emerges pertaining to why public sector organizations conduct formal performance appraisals: effective are performance apprais: To investigate this issue, we conducted a research project designed to answer three important questions that focus specifically on the appraisal process as a man- ager/subordinate interaction: 1) What specific functions can be served by the formal appraisal process in a public sector organization; 2) Do managers and subordinates differ in their perceptions of appraisal effectiveness?; and 3) How can the formal appraisal process be improved? in public sector organizations? The Study and Methodology Previous research has identified a number of critical functions that can potentially be served by the formal performance appraisal process in private sector organizations. These dimensions were formulated into an eight item questionnaire designed to assess manager and subordinate perceptions of appraisal effectiveness on each issue, The questionnaire employed a four point rating scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. In addition, two questions were added to evaluate the respondents’ overall assessment of the appraisal process as well as their willingness to participate in the formal appraisal process. The final item on the questionnaire was an open ended question designed to solicit the respondents’ views on how to improve the appraisal process: “Based on your experience, what could be done to improve the effectiveness of the formal appraisal process?” ‘The questionnaire was administered to 357 members of the profe: staff of a large multi-purpose public sector service organization located in the Midwest. This organization was selected based on the following criteria: 1) the organization found the findings from previous research to be compatible with the mission and functions of its own appraisal system; 2) the organization had a professionally developed and technically sound performance appraisal system that included a formal performance appraisal procedure, formal rater training, a standardized job description based rating instrument; and 3) the organization required all managers to conduct an annual appraisal with each of onal Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effect 153 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.their subordinates. The overall response rate was 71.1% which included 77.1% of managers (n=47) and 69.9% of subordinates (n=207). The average organ- izational tenure of respondents was 10.5 years for managers and 11.8 years for subordinates. Table 1: The Function Served by the Formal Appraisal Process Disagree Agree (Percentages) 1. PEDS* lets the employee know — Mangers 170 83.0 where they stand Subordinates 30.7 69.3 2. PEDS allows employees input Managers 23.4 766 about their jobs Subordinates 203 79.7 3, PEDS helps clarify employee Managers 23.4 766 performance goals & objectives Subordinates 30.5 695 4. PEDS faciliates the discussion Managers 203 79.7 of employee development Subordinates 318 68.2 S. PEDS is an effective Managers 319 68.1" communication tool Subordinates 518 48.2 6. PEDS helps improve the Managers 34.0 66.0* manger/employee working Subordinates 53.8 46.2 relationship 7. PEDS improves employee Managers 42.6 57.4" motivation & performance Subordinates 708 29.2 8 PEDS effectively links merit Managers 57.4 42.6" pay to performance Subordinates 798 192 9. | believe PEDS is worthwhile Managers 298 702 Subordinates 32.9 674 10.1 would participate in PEDS Managers 31.9 684 even if it was not required Subordinates 29.9 70.1 *PEDS (Performance Appraisal and Development System}- the name of the organization's formal appraisal system) *P<,05 using Chi Square Statistic Table | presents the questionnaire items related to the functions that arepotentially served by formal performance appraisal and the respecti response frequencies in percentages. For purposes of simplifying the presen- tation of these results, the Agree and Strongly Agree and Disagree and Strongly Disagree anchors were consolidated into two categories, Disagree and Agree. In analyzing the data, two criteria were employed to assess performance appraisal effectiveness. The first criterion was that a significant majority of both managers and subordinates had to agree that the function was being fulfilled by the appraisal process. Ithas been suggested that an appraisal system 154 Public Personnel Management Volume 25 No. 2 (Summer, 1996) “Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.The Findings Discussion has more validity (i.e., accomplish its intended purpose) when a significant majority of the organization's members have a favorable attitude towards the system.'® Sixty-five percent of both managers and subordinates responding to the survey constituted a significant majority in this study. The second criterion used to assess effectiveness pertains to the level of agreement between managers and subordinates on cach function. As stated above, managers and subordinates must have a shared perception of how well the appraisal process serves its intended functions. The level of agreement between public sector managers and subordinates was accordingly examined. The appraisal was considered ineffective when there was a statistically signifi- cant difference in the proportion of managers and subordinates who agreed that, the function in question was being served by the appraisal process. To this end, a Chi-square analysis was conducted to ascertain whether the differences between manager/subordinate perceptions were statistically significant, The asterisks signify that perceptual differences between managers and subordi- nates were statistically different using a Chi-s Finally, to identify the primary factors that could be used to improve appraisal effectiveness, the responses to the open-ended questions pertaining to the causes of appraisal ineffectiveness were content analyzed. Responses generated by managers and subordinates were classified by a panel of three judges according to their content and frequency Counts were tabulated for each response, The results are presented in Table 2. Managers generated an average of 3.0 responses to this question (n=142) while subordinates averaged 3.7 responses (n=767). The results of Table 2 show both the manager’s and subordinate’s suggestions on how to improve appraisal effectiveness. The remainder of this paper will focus on the implica- tions of these findings on public sector performance appraisal effectiveness. Public sector organizations across the U.S. are being asked to provide more services per tax dollar while demonstrating increased levels of account- ability to taxpayers. The expansion of the formal appraisal process in the public sector is a trend that theoretically supports this notion of doing more with less and increasing the accountability of individual employees. Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness 155 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.No one would argue that performance appraisal is a panacea in terms of its ability to serve an organization in a variety of different roles. Yet, it appears that the benefits and merits of the appraisal process can be frequently overstated. The items listed in Table | represent an excellent cross-section of functions that the appraisal process would seem well equipped to fulfill in public sector organizations. While it is relatively easy to suggest that the appraisal process can serve each of these important functions, the question remains as to whether can be done so effectively when most organizations have multiple goals for their appraisal system. The organization in this study had a professionally developed appraisal system, provided rater training, and required managers to conduct annual reviews of subordinates directly reporting to them. To a great extent, its approach to the formal appraisal process could be described as quite typical for many public sector organizations. The response to the results were mixed. The response to the first research question on what specific functions the formal appraisal process can effectively serve in a public sector organization received mixed results. Both managers and their subordinates believed that the appraisal process: 1) allows employees’ input about their jobs; 2) informs employees of where they stand; 3) helps to clarify the employees’ performance and objec- tives; and 4) facilitates the discussion of the employees’ development. Given employee needs for feedback, direction, role clarity, job involvement, and development, these are very positive findings.!7 Table 2: Suggestions on Improving Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness Managers Perspective Percentage Responses 1. Need more resources to reward performance 47% 22) 2. Spread evaluations over the entire year 40% (19) 3. Upper-evel managers conduct appraisals 36% an 4. Get employees more involved in the process 32% (15) 5. More training for managers 26% aay 6. Reduce the amount of paperwork 23% a) 7. Consistency between managers in rating 21% © performance 8. Reduce employee defensiveness 17% ® 9. Clarify purpose of the appraisal process 13% © 10. Other 49% 23) 156 Public Personnel Management Volume 25 No. 2 (Summer, 1996)Subordinate’s Perspective Percentage Responses 1. More career opportunities and rewards 52% (108) 2. Managers take time off to conduct appraisals 41% (85) 3. Better clarification of performance 39% 1) expectations 4, Reduce personal bias and favortism 36% (75) 5, Managers need more training 35% (72) 6. More ongoing feedback 30% (62) 7. Manager needs better knowledge of actual 26% (5a) performance 8. Greater emphasis on employee development 22% (46) 9. Increased two-way communication 19% (39) 10.Managers should not dwell on negatives 12% as) 11.0ther 58% (120) The appraisal process was conversely perceived as being less than effec- tive by both parties as a vehicle for improving the employee motivation/per- formance and linking merit pay to the employee performance. These findings are particularly noteworthy since two of the most frequently cited reasons for doing performance appraisals include merit pay administration and improving employee motivation and performance. In each scenario, the appraisal system received disastrous ratings, especially from the subordinates’ perspective. The difference in perceptions between managers and subordinates was also statis tically significant in both cases. Finally, when evaluated as both a tool to improve the manager/subordi- nate relationship and as a communications tool, the appraisal process received a split review. Managers believed the appraisal process was reasonably effec- tive in both areas while subordinates viewed the process as ineffective. Man- agers viewed the appraisal process in a much more favorable light in comparison to the subordinate who considered the exchange more likely to be one-sided or one-way communication. Given the importance of manager/sub- ordinate working relationships and effective manager/subordinate communi- cations, these findings are problematic. They suggest that managers might not be aware that the appraisal process is not meeting the needs of their subordi- nates. In addition, the appraisal process by its very nature forces the manager tocommunicate with the subordinate where the converse is not necessarily true. The merits of the appraisal process as a ool to improve the manager/subordinate Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness 157 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.relationship and communications are thus called to question by the very individuals the process was supposed to benefit. Itis important to note that both managers and subordinates perceive the formal appraisal process at this organization to be a worthwhile program despite certain levels of dissatisfaction with specific outcomes of the process as indicated by their belief that appraisals are worthwhile (question 9). Question 10 provides us with an even more important finding given the often repeated complaints in organizational circles that “the only reason I go through these appraisals is because I have to.” In this study, managers and subordinates alike indicated they would participate in the appraisal process even if it was not required. This suggests that the appraisal process satisfies some of their specific personal and organizational needs that might not be met otherwise In four out of the eight appraisal functions, managers view the process more favorably than their subordinates. Overall, managers typically hold a more favorable assessment of the appraisal process than do their subordinates it forces them to communicate with their subordinates and encourage them to improve their performance. This process makes the manager feel as if they are fulfilling their managerial responsibilities and allows them to be encouraged (and maybe even relieved) when the process is completed. This, feeling is not necessarily shared by the subordinate. In total, this organization’s appraisal system (that has been designed “by the book” and would appear to be technically sound in all respects) is not accomplishing its intended purposes on are less likely to think so. becat a number of counts, although its managers In response to the open ended question on how to improve the formal appraisal process, a careful review of the results in Table 2 reveals that managers and subordinates have their own ideas about how to improve the appraisal process with some common ground. Both parties agree that to increase appraisal effectiveness: 1) more resources are needed to help reward performance; 2) employees need to be more involved in the process; and 3) managers could use additional training Manager response to this question tends to focus on the appraisal system’s design, operation and support. Design issues include spreading employee appraisals over the entire year to reduce the appraisal workload during a specific period cach year; reducing the amount of paperwork associated with the appraisal process; and clarifying the purpose of the organization’s apprai effort, From an operational perspective, managers see the need to increase consistency between the ratings they provide across the organization while reducing employee defensiveness in the process. In terms of support, managers 158 Public Personnel Management Volume 25 No. 2 (Summer, 1996) Coovriaht @ 200'. All Rights Reserved.want their superiors to provide them with effective appraisals and make suggestions on the need for additional rater training. From the subordinate’s perspective, suggestions on how to improve appraisal effectiveness are very focused. From the employees" perspective, the manager is the key element requiring appraisal effectiveness improvement. Subordinates suggest the need for more effective performance planning; more ongoing performance feedback during the year; and better performance moni- toring by management during the year. These factors are the hallmarks of effective management that extend beyond the process of an annual formal performance appraisal review. When the review takes place, managers must take the time to conduct effective reviews; minimize personal bias and favor- itism; place a greater emphasis on employee development; and increase two- way communication. Subordinates also indicated that an effective appraisal process: 1) has clear performance standards; 2) takes place in an environment where managers do not dwell on negatives; 3) is preceded by ongoing performance feedback during the year; and 4) is conducted by a manager who is prepared, who takes the process seriously, and who has sufficient knowledge of the subordinate’s actual performance. In conclusion, public sector organizations would be well served to focus their development activities on enhancing the appraisal skills of the key component in the appraisal process — the manager, by providing them with the system, training and support required. Recommendation In this study we found that formal appraisals are not always as effective as organizations believe. This conclusion is consistent with the findings in private sector organizations. “While there is considerable evidence that per- formance appraisal provides the critical input for certain types of administrative decisions, its contribution to the more positive aspects of management such as feedback and counselling is far less evident.”'* At the same time, appraisals do serve a number of useful purposes for public sector organizations, managers, and subordinates alike, many of which fall into the category of scheduled (or forced) communications. If a public sector organization is committed to improving the effectiveness of its appraisal system, the following recommen- dations are suggested. Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness 159 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.(1)Make sure managers and subordinates understand the appraisal system — Everyone in the organization needs to understand why appraisals are being conducted and how the system operates. Organizations that clearly state the purpose for appraisals aid in reducing the confusion and ambiguity surrounding the process. The goal should be that everyone knows why you are conducting appraisal (2)Assess the effectiveness of your current appraisal system —What are the intended functions of your current appraisal system? Identify them, and construct a questionnaire to assess the degree to which organizational members perceive the appraisal process to be effective. The organization is then in a position to develop a strategy to address shortcomings if any are found to exist. (3)Appraisal skills training for your managers is a must — It is obvious that the ability of the supervisor to adeptly appraise his/her subordinate is critical to a successful performance appraisal. Performance appraisal train- ing must focus on helping managers develop specific appraisal skills and confidence in their ability to effectively evaluate others. These skills should include: goal setting, communicating performance standards, observing sub- ordinate performance, coaching and providing feedback, completing the rating form, and conducting the appraisal review. Appraisals without training often lead to ineffectiveness, frustration, and dissatisfaction. (4)Increase your manager’s willingness to conduct effective apprais- als — This study clearly reveals two key issues that will strongly influence your appraisal system’s effectiveness. First, more managers than subordinates be- lieve the appraisal system is effectively fulfilling the functions for which it was designed. Thus, they may feel less need to improve as raters. Secondly, the primary causes of appraisal ineffectiveness fall squarely on the manager's shoulder. The organization therefore needs to take steps to make the manager more willing to conduct effective appraisals once skills training has been conducted and to realize that they might not be as effective as they think Survey feedback is an effective tool to inform them where their employees stand. Next, the organization must take acti willingness to conduct effective appraisals. Conducting effective appraisals with your managers and providing refresher training on a regular basis are key factors in improving rater effectiveness. Managers must also be rewarded in their appraisals for effectively evaluating their subordinates. fe steps to increase its manager's (5)Start with effective performance planning — Planning is required to set the stage for effective appraisals. More than half of the subordinates in this study cited unclear performance standards as a cause of ineffective apprais- als. Meaningful and accurate evaluation and feedback requires that clear goals 160 Public Personnel Management Volume 25 No. 2 (Summer, 1996) Copvright @ 2001. All Rights Reserved.be established beforehand. Therefore, a large part of the appraisal process should be devoted to deter ig what actions need to be taken in the future, since itis harder to correct the results of poor planning than it is to plan correctly at the beginning. (6)Make informal appraisals an ongoing activity — Annual appraisals are only as effective as what happens during the rest of the work year. Managers can increase their appraisal effectiveness by scheduling periodic, informal appraisals with their subordinates on a regular basis. These mini-appraisals will encourage honest communication, give the manager an opportunity to monitor employce progress, provide the employee with an ongoing source of feedback, and help address minor problems before they build or snowball (7)Provide resources necessary to link pay to performance — The practice of linking rewards to performance appraisal results has been found to be one of the most unclear and controversial issues in the related research studies.'? The findings of our case study showed that few managers and subordinates believe the system effectively linked pay to performance. If a performance appraisal is to be used as a vehicle to administer merit pay, managers and subordinates must perceive that sufficient funds are available to reward actual differences in performance and that the administration of the plan is done in a fair and equitable manner. When the availability of merit pay monies either a) drives the ratings a subordinate receives instead of vice-versa, or b) does not allow for differentiation among various levels of contribution to the organization, the system will be viewed as a sham. Should this occur, the appraisal process will lose its ability to have a positive effect on employee motivation and may create a lack of trust in the performance appraisal process which is sure to undermine the potential for the system to effectively fulfill other desired functions. (8)Use employee anniversary dates to stagger appraisals — To pro- vide managers time to conduct more effective appraisals we strongly urge that organizations stagger appraisals throughout the year. This practice reduces the difficulty of manager’s having to conduct numerous appraisals in a condensed period of time which can be a serious threat to the effectiveness of the process. Public sector performance appraisals are a significant aspect of making employees more productive and are the “tool of choice” in such performance enhancing efforts.”° It has been said that “anything worth doing is worth doing well.” Given the goals of most appraisal systems, this saying appears to be quite appropriate and, yet, effective appraisals are not assured by a technically sound system alone. Other elements, such as managers’ and subordinates’ attitudes toward performance appraisals, and expectations also play a signil Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness 161 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Endnotes cant role in achieving effectiveness of performance appraisal.”! This study should serve as a case study for organizations to assess the effectiveness of their appraisal systems. Organizations must continually look for ways to keep effective management and appraisal behavior in the forefront of managerial consciousness or the things worth doing will not be done well. Appraisals are no exception. “HA. Locher & KS. Teel, "Appraisal Trends,” Personnel Journal, 67, (1988) (9): 139-145. > B.P. Maroney and M.R. Buckely, “Does Research in Performance Appraisal Influence the Practice of Performance Appraisal? Regretflly not!” Public Personnel Management, 21, (1992) {2}: 185-196. * AM. Mohrman, Jr, S.M. Resnick-West, & E.E, Lawler, Designing Performance Appraisal Sys (Gan Francisco, Jossey Bass, Inc, 1989). + J, Greenburg, “Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluation,” Journal of Applied Psyehoogy, 7, (1986) (2) 340-342 ® A. Ash, “Participants’ Reactions to Subordinate Appraisal of Managers: Result of a Pokot,” Public Personnel Management, 23, (1998) 237- “DI, Wright, “The pli Roleof Performance Appraisal," Personnel Administrator, 30, (1985) 5) * Maroney and Buckley, “Does Research in Performance Appraisal Influence the Practice of Performance Appraisal ® E. Lawler, A. Mohrman, and S. Resnick, “Performance Appraisal Revisited,” Organizational Dynamics, 13, (1984) 2) (20-35). * C.O. Longenecker and S.J. Goff, “Why Performance Appraisal Still Fail?," Journal of Compen- sation and Benefits, 23. (1990) 36-41 ° GE. Roberts, "Barriers o Municipal Government Performance Appraisal Systems: Evidence Fora Survey of Municipal Personnel Administrators Publ Pesoel Management, 23, 199) 5-236, | Greenburg, “Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluation.” }2C.0. Longenecker, P.R. Liverpool, & K.A. Wilson, “An Assessment of Manageria/Subordi- nate Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Effectiveness,” journal of Business ant Psychology, 2 (1988), (4) 811-320. HJ, Bernardin and R.W. Beatty, Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work, (Boston, Kent, 1984) “CO, Longenecker, D.A. Gioia, & H.P. Sims, “Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal,” The Academy of Management Executive, 1 (1987) (3) 183-193. 15.0 Longenecker and SJ. Goff, “Performance Aj pra fectiveness: A Matter of Perspec- tive” SAN doanced Managemen Iourna, 1, (1982) 17-23. 28D .L. DeVries, AJ. Morrison, SL. Shullman and ML. Gerlach, Performance Appraisal the Line (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986), n : ot HH, Meyer, E, Kay and [.P. French, “Split Roles in Performance Appraisal” Haroard business Rei, 43, (863) 12-128, DLL. Balfour, “Impact of Agency Investments in the Implementation of Performance Ap- praisal,” Public Personnel Management, 21, (1992) (1) 1-15 162 Public Personnel Management Volume 25 No. 2 (Summer, 1996) Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Bibliography "Maroney and Buckley, “Does Research in Performance Appraisal Influence the Practice of Performance Appraisal?” Roberts, “Barriers to Municipal Government Performance Appraisal Systems. 21D M, Daley, “The Civil Service Reform Act and Performance Appraisal: A Research Note on Federal Employee Perceptions," Public Personnel Management, 19, (1990) (3) 245-251 Ash, A. (1994). “Participants’ reactions to subordinate appraisal of managers: Results ofa Pilot,” Public Personnel Management, 23, 237-256. Balfour, DL, (1992) “Impact of Agency Investment in the Implementation of Performance Appraisal,” Public Personnel Management, 21(1) 1-15, Bernardin, HL, and Beatty, RW. (1988) Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behaviorat Work (Boston MAS Kent). th 8. asco, W.F (1987) Applied Psyhlogy in Persona Management (Englewood Clif NJ: Prentice Hall. Daley, D.M. (1990) “The Civil Service Reform Act and Performance A ppraisal: A Research Note on Federal Employee Perceptions,” Public Personnel Management, 19(3):245-251. DeVries, D.L., Morrison, A.J, Shullman, S.L., and Gerlach, MLL. (1986) Performance Appraisal on the Line (New York: john Wiley and Sons), Greenberg, J. (1986) “Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluation,” Journal of Applied Piychology, 71(2)340-242 ligen, DAR. and Feldman, JM, (1989) “Performance Appraisal ,A Process Focus,” in . Cum- mings and BM. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 5:141-197. Lawler, E, Mohrman, A., and Resnick, S. (1984) “Performance Appraisal Revisited,” Organtza- tional Dynamics, 13(2):20-35. Locher, H.A. and Teel, K.S, (1988) “Appraisal Trends,” Personnel Journal, 67(9):139-145. Longenecker, C.O. DA. Gioia, and, HP. Sims (1967) “Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal,” The Academy of Management Executive, 1(3):183-193 Longenecker, C0. (1988) "Truth or Consequences: Politics and Employee Appraisal,” Business Horton, 32(6).77-88, proven PP Longenecker, C.O,, Liverpool, P.R,, and Wilson, K.A. (1988) “An Assessment of Manage- ralGubordinate Perceptions of Periormance Appraise Efecivenes” Jounal of Busines and Psychology, 2(4)311-3 Longenecker, C.O. & Goff, $. (1990) “Why Performance Appraisals Still Fail," Journal of Compensation arid Benefits, 23, 36-41 - a ’ Longenecker, CO. & Gofl, 81. (1982) "Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: A Matter of Perspective,” SAM Adoanced Management Journal, 14, 17-23 Maroney, B.P. and Buckely, MR. (1992) "Does Research in Performance Appraisal Influence the Practice of Performance Appraisal? Regretfully Not!” Public Personnel Management, 21(2):185-196. Meyer, HLH, Kay, E.and French, J.P, (1965), “Split Resin Performance Appraisal" Harcard Bstnes Review, 13, 12-128, id Mohrman, AM, Jr. Resnick-West, $M, and Lawler, F.E. (1989) Desigiing Performance Appraisal System (San Francisco, Jossey Bass Inc.) Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness 163 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Roberts, G.E, (1994) “Barriers to Municipal Government Performance Appraisal Systems; Evidence froma Survey of Municipal Personnel Administrators’, Pubic Personnel Managemen, {Night DT. 1985) TheSplit Role of Performance Appraisal” Personnel Administrator 303) 83- Don’t miss this opportunity to join your colleagues in public sector human resources... Make plans now to attend the 1996 IPMA International Training Conference on Public Personnel Administration being held October 27-31, in Las Vegas, Nevada. TRAINING a (ONE CDENC OCTOBER 27-21, 1990 LAS VEGAS, NY Ipma NEERAITIONAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT LOCATION The complete conference program is available by calling the IPMA Meetings Department at 703-549-7100 or the toll-free IPMA Fax Finder Information Line at 800-549-FAX1 (3291) and requesting item #6003. 164 Public Personnel Management Volume 25 No. 2 (Summer, 1996) it 2001. All Rights.