Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
A Thesis Submitted to
The Faculty of the Arts
Graduate School
of
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the requirements for
The degree of
Master of Arts
In Organizational Communications
By
May 2007
BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITY
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
_____________________________
Mathias Mogekwu, Ph.D.
_____________________________
Otis Thomas, Ph.D.
______________________________
Ritchard M’Bayo, Ph.D.
Thesis Advisor
ABSTRACT
ii
Job and organizational changes has promoted the importance of social skill at work,
however employee’s have not been able to fully explore to their advantage the performance
appraisal process which is a formally recognized means of measuring work related social
The research investigates the interaction between how employees negotiate their
identity in the workplace and its implication for performance appraisal by supervisors. The
study proposed two hypothesis and the results indicated that supervisors’ positive regards
associated frequently with higher performance appraisal (PA) ratings, and with other finding
The interaction of fairness indicates that Enhanced knowledge in the dynamics of self
Implications of these results and direction for future research are discussed.
DEDICATION
iii
This work is dedicated to Adonia, my sovereign lord who gave me the strength to see it
through and to Donna Oti who always believes in me and positioned the ladder for me to climb.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
iv
My special thanks to my parents Barrister John Ochoga and Dr. Mrs. Diana Ochoga for
scarifies, goodness, prayers, love and respect. And to Attah, Ichemeta and Obande, my bothers
A special thanks to Mathias Ayendi, my lovely friend for his continued patience and
support during my schooling period and mostly my writing period. Thanks for making sure I
Many thanks to Fr Martin Yina for his continuous prayers and guidance, to the
Ayendi’s, Aunt Julie, aunt Pat and aunt Esther for their continuous supports during my school
years and mostly during my period of writing, which always takes time away from them.
My thanks and appreciation to Dr. Ritchard M’Bayo who has mentored me through out
this program and who is responsible for helping me conceive the idea for this thesis. I appreciate
your patience and your insentience that I never produce a less than perfect work.
given me all their support even though I turned in my work at very short notice. Thanks to Dr.
Langmia for his help, he made sure that my writing had a very strong foundation and stayed
To my class mates especial Annie and Wanda who always helped me through my
confessions and encouraged me to go on, God bless and help you follow your dreams.
Finally, I acknowledge everyone who has been part of my research process. I appreciate
TABLE OF CONTENTS
v
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
Introduction..............................................................................................................1
Background..............................................................................................................2
Problem Statement....................................................................................................4
Theoretical Framework.............................................................................................4
Scope of Study........................................................................................................10
Significance of the Study........................................................................................10
Variable Definitions................................................................................................11
CHAPTER IV – FINDINGS............................................................................................42
Introduction............................................................................................................42
Demographic descriptions.......................................................................................43
Findings..................................................................................................................52
CHAPTER V - INTERPRETATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................57
Interpretations.........................................................................................................58
Limitations to study findings...................................................................................61
Recommendation....................................................................................................62
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................64
Appendix A..................................................................................................................64
Appendix B...................................................................................................................67
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................79
LIST OF TABLES AND LIST OF FIGURES
vi
Taxonomy of Justice Perceptions..................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 1
vii
INTRODUCTION
organizations, and became a topic of interest to both scholars and practitioners (Lander &
Farr, 1980; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). These largely stemmed from the theorized link
This link can be understood and harnessed based on the communication implication of
performance appraisal vis-à-vis its message function – what communication does or how it
between a subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview
(annual or semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and
discussed, with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for
skills, attitudes, beliefs and values are rewarded. Employees, however, are not passive
many performance appraisal processes are managerially controlled in terms of timing, criteria
for measurement, etc, employees also act as processing agents who have the ability to exert
some control over how information is interpreted, their feelings about themselves, and their
contributions to the organization, their relationships with their supervisors and co-workers,
viii
and their behaviors. Therefore, when employees talk about or reflect on their individual and
collective identities at the work place, they are creating meanings and providing information
necessary to make choices and understand given realities within the concept of performance
appraisal.
Background
personnel reward decisions (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989; Murphy & Cleveland,
1995). To achieve this aim, it requires that the appraisal demonstrates adequate psychometric
characteristics (e.g., reliability, construct validity) and also be free of evaluation errors such
as leniency, halo etc. However Research has shown that performance ratings collected in
organizational settings typically suffer from leniencies which are promoted by administrative
perspective, including management (Grote, 1996; Thomas & Bretz, 1994, McGregor, 1957),
human resources (Mani, 2002), psychology (landy & Farr, 1980; Levy & Williams.2004),
and communication (Downs, 1990; Stewart & Cash, 1985; Wanguri, 1995).
performance feedback (Cusella, 1987; Geddes & Linnehan, 1996), the practice of
ix
interviewing (Stewart & Cash,1985), and investigating the relationship between appraisal and
a verity of other variables such as trust (O’Reilly & Anderson, 1980), satisfaction (Downs,
1990), or judgment of harassment (Remland & Jones, 1985). Communication scholars have
also been interested in examining how appraisal is taught (Erhart, 1976; Krayer, 1987) and
One of the reasons for this disparity in research teams and perceptions may be the
way in which different fields have defined what constitutes fairness and accuracy.
A major barrier to performance appraisal accuracy is the context within which this
process takes place – a social context with considerable interaction and mutual dependency.
Indeed research has found that interpersonal effect is related to rating errors (Cardy &
According to Dulewicz (1989, pp. 645), there is "... a basic human tendency to make
judgments about those one is working with, as well as about oneself." These judgments are
also raises the question of what could be done to increase the perception of fairness as
x
Purpose of the Study
personal information flow within the organization and its influence on performance appraisal.
To achieve these, four factors will be considered; how employees negotiate their identity
performance appraisal.
Although each of these factors has been investigated individually in pervious research
works, their interactive effects have not been examined collectively particularly as they affect
self shaping through interpersonal communication, and its presumed effects on performance
appraisal.
Thus, the aim of this research is to offer a view of the interactive role of these factors
and to help employees determine what elements of good self shaping will contribute to their
Problem Statement
In what way can employee self conceptualization in the work place be managed to
Performance appraisals are measures of criteria of performance and are necessary for
performance appraisal and feedback provide a basis for strategic employee development and
xi
Consequently, the accuracy with which the performance appraisal information is
raters indicating their response to performance appraisal items through the use of likert-type
scales ratings are susceptible to error. Some of the most common performance appraisal
errors are leniency, severity, central tendency, and halo (Cascio, 1998, Guion, 1998).
A major barrier to performance appraisal accuracy is the context within which the
process takes place – a social context within considerable interaction and mutual
information gaining, building a context of understanding and establishing identity are related
to errors in performance appraisal evaluations (Cardy & Dobbins, 1986; Robbins & DeNisi,
Furthermore, raters will purposefully inflate or deflate employee rating for political or
to explore the reasoning behind performance appraisal rating inaccuracies. The most obvious
reason discovered was that executives simply are not concerned with performance appraisal
rating accuracy. In addition, the interview affirmed that raters will purposefully rate because
of political reasons such as (1) the reality that they have daily interpersonal interactions with
the ratee; (2) the permanence of the ratings are documented in the employees’ record, and (3)
the most cited political reason is that performance appraisals inevitably influence the ratees’
Some executives reported that they have purposefully deflected performance ratings
for reasons such as: (1) to shock a difficult or poor performing employee back into being a
xii
high performer, (2) to remind ratees of who is in charge, and (3) to document poor
performance for termination purposes (Longnecker, 1987). Other executives have inflated
performances rating for reasons such as (1) maintain or increase subordinates performance,
(2) increase subordinates eligibility for rewards. (3) protect subordinates who have gone
through a difficult time in their lives, (4) to avoid confrontation with subordinates
(Longnecker, 1987).
Theoretical Framework
claims about the social world (Kaplan, 1964). Theories can be thought of as lenses used to
observe, frame, and explain a particular version of the social world (Deetz, 1992a).
embedded in this theoretical perspective. Consistent with this philosophical stance the study
adopted a Predictive theory methodology and employed survey method during the processes
relationship between meaning and action, and for how change in context-dependent and
socially constructed realities takes place (Cronen et al., 1982; Cronen, Pearce & Changsheng,
make the events and objects of our social world. This is based on the assertion that persons-
in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the
xiii
worlds they create; consequently; the action and results of our worlds are based on the
Similarly, this study suggest that the outcomes of performance appraisal are not
something that employees just find or discover, instead, it is a reflection of the meaning
gained by their supervisors through their pass interactions in the work place. This assertion
further answers the questions posed by Pearce & Cronen the theorists (Griffin; 2006, pg 66):
What are we doing? Thus, what are persons-in-conversations responsible for? In the case of
this study employee engage in interactions to construct their identities. What are we making
The basis of this theory is that meaning which results in action occurs as created
through communication; via-a-via, it focuses on the things that we do to each other and the
things that we make with each other when we interact giving that meaning exist as they are
From this perspective, meaning is a fundamentally social process that results from
agents who have the ability to exert some control over how information is interpreted, their
feeling about themselves, their contributions to the organization, their relationships with their
processes and its effects on learning or knowing, but to better understand the deep
xiv
Part of what makes this theory ideal for this study is that, unlike some objective
theorists, Pearce & Cronen don’t claim to have discovered principles of communication that
hold true for everyone in every situation. Instead the theory consists of sets of concepts and
model’s to help people enhance their understanding and act more effectively in a wide range
of communication situations (Griffin; 2006). Likewise this study only suggests that some
its proponents, that its ultimate test is not one of “truth” in the sense of representing
something accurately, but rather in the sense of beneficial consequence. Thus, the theory is
successful when it helps create a higher quality of life (Griffin; 2006). This study hopes to
appraisal.
Constructionism. According to this theory, the way human beings see the world is as a social
construction (Gergen, 1985; Hoffman, 1990). People live and understand their lives through
the socially constructed “realities” that they find meaningful, and in relation to which they
organize their experience. New meaning is constantly developed through interaction between
human beings. It exists and changes as part of the stories that people tell themselves and
others.
Consequently, Human beings build these constructions about the world, both as
individuals and as part of one or more groups, and act accordingly. A person’s understanding
of his or her reality has a great influence on his or her possibilities of action; a particular
xv
understanding with a certain area invites certain actions and renders other less likely (Gergen
& Kaye, 1992). Similarly, any action, remark, or incident is perceived according to the social
context in which it takes place. A certain message has a certain meaning according to this
context, and vice versa; the message is part of the creation of the context (Pearce, 1992).
In this view, realities such as interactions that affect performance appraisal are
viewed in terms of multiple, mental constructions held by individuals and groups. These
mental constructions are socially and experientially based and although local and specific in
nature may often be shared across the organization, for instance, it could be a stigmatization
of a particular employee as being lazy and taking advantage of people. This could have
arisen because of pervious stories of conquest she might have share with a peer at work.
Consequently, such mental constructions are not more or less 'true' in an absolute sense but
Hence, The act of inquiry begins with the issue of meaning assigned to employee
interpersonal relations and the resulting action on performance appraisal by supervisors and
eventually leads to a shared consensus that links to the data and it is credible and relevant to
the situation.
xvi
Scope of the Study
The scope of the study refers to the breadth of communication behavior covered
within the study (West & Turner, 2004). This study is intended to examine the dynamics of
The study will define the different communication patterns and show how they affect
the way supervisor’s rate subordinates during performance appraisal. The study will also
This study will view interpersonal communication and its effects on performance
appraisal from the point of view of supervisors and subordinates. Supervisors who have more
than three employees under them within the academic and administrative divisions at Bowie
The value of this study is the insight it offers employees on the kind of stories they
tell through interpersonal communication that hinder or enhance their rating during
performance appraisal. It is hoped that with this knowledge employee will be able to shape
human resource management. Though lots of research has been done on improving accuracy
in performance appraisal and maintain its perception of fairness, considerable emphasis has
been placed on the dynamics associated with interpersonal communication within the work
place.
xvii
Variable Definitions
people hold to be in accordance with what they actually deserve or merit, or are in some
or communication with another person. Its purpose is to exchange symbols used to achieve
interpersonal goals
supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or semi-annual), in
which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed, with a view to
identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and skills
development.
xviii
CHAPTER 11
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter served as the foundation for the development of this study. An overview
Introduction
measurement issues and problems, and was followed by an onslaught of research related to
the impact of cognitive processes on performance appraisals. More recent research however,
has focused on some of the social and emotional factors related to performance appraisal
(Schraeder & Simpson; 2006). Within this stream of literature, considerable emphasis has
been placed on the dynamics associated between the supervisor and subordinate.
and impression management are some of the antecedents that results when people engage in
interpersonal communication especial in the workplace (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol & Wyer,
xix
Although these antecedents can relate to various dimensions, this study will focus
In other to make some sense of and make comparisons among the vast array of
in this literature review, I propose four main perspective (a) how employees negotiate their
identity in the workplace, (b) the meaning supervisors ascribe to these self conceptualization
have on performance appraisal, (d) and how these influences can be managed to reflect
The listing of these four areas follows a loose chronology of scholarly and
describes research in each of these areas, highlighting key assumptions and commitments of
the framework along with its finding, which provides supporting hypothesis for this study.
Performance Appraisal
For more than thirty years, performance appraisal research focused on measurement
and instrumentation issues. Psychologists Landy and Farr (1980) published an influential
article that changed the direction of research on performance appraisal. They agued that
enough research had been done on measurement and new research should attempt to better
understand cognitive processes that influence the rating process. They wrote, “It is time to
stop looking at the symptoms of bias in rating and begin examining its potential causes”
(Landy & Farr, 1980, p.34). Landy and Farr (1980) recommended to researches to pay
xx
attention to understanding how individual raters construct their reality to derive cognitive
maps of raters and the effects of feedback loops on ratings. Additionally, Feldman (1981)
argued that attention needs to be paid to the rating process, rather than exclusively focusing
on rating outcomes. From this perspective, researches seek to understand how information is
translated through cognitive processes into ratings with the goal of minimizing bias and error.
Some examples of process approaches are cognitive process of evaluation (DeNisi, Cafferty,
DeNisi, Cafferty & Meglino (1984) proposed a model of performance appraisal that is based
on social cognitive processes and reflects a view that performance appraisal is an exercise in
social perception and cognition embedded in an organizational context that requires both
formal and implicit judgment. The process begins with the primary input of job-relevant
behavior exhibited by the ratee. Given this behavior, the performance appraisal consist of six
step: (1) the rater observes the behavior, (2) the rater forms some cognitive representation of
the behavior, (3) the rater stores the cognitive representation in his or her mind, (4) the rater
must retrieve the stored information to use in formal evaluation, (5) the rater reconsidered
and integrates the retrieved information with other information available, and (6) the rater
halo effects, and recent behavior bias. The halo effect has been identified as the most
Halo occurs when the rater assigns the ratee ratings based on a global assessment of the ratee,
xxi
Other issues of interest are how prior expectations, prior knowledge, and expectation
process which recognize that interrelated actions occur over a period of time. As Grote
(1996) describes it, performance appraisal actually involves a number of events that usually
happen in a predictable and sequential fashion. These events managers reflecting on their
subordinates’ job performance, mangers and subordinate assembling and completing forms
and paperwork, conducting the performance appraisal interview, reviewing and signing
Critique of this stream of research is that most of the concepts and methods have
borrowed from social psychology, and many of them have been imported uncritically (Iigen
& Favero, 1985). While a social psychology framework could be useful to better understand
asked. For example, researches need to consider the continuous nature of interactions in
performance appraisal the independencies between raters and ratees, and the confounding of
Another critique of this stream of literature is that much of the knowledge gained
about cognitive processes of evaluation and rating were conducted in laboratory setting. Most
of these laborary experiments do and cannot duplicate the complexity of real life
Rating in real life is therefore conceptually and operationally different from rating
tasks presented in laboratory settings (Brtz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992). Many researchers are
calling for research that includes the varying political, social, and effective nature of rating
xxii
environments and how these cognitive processes are affected (Bretz, Milkovich &Read,
management and the related topics of self-presentation and ingratiation (Jones, 1964; Leafy
& Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). Drawing on Schlenker (1980), impression
management may be defined as those behaviors individuals employ to protect their self-
images, influence the way they are perceived by significant others, or both.
Most impression management research has been conducted at the dyadic level and
has focused on the types of strategies employed (Buss, Gomes, Higgins, & Lauterbach,
1987), motivations behind the use of each strategy (Arkin, Appleman, & Berger, 1980),
individual characteristics of agents and targets related to the use of impression management
(Schlenker & Leafy, 1982a), and reactions of targets to impression management behaviors
Although much has been accomplished within this stream of research, only a few
studies have empirically examined the relationship between impression management and
performance ratings (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990;
xxiii
To date, impression management studies in the performance appraisal area have
either been conducted in a laboratory setting or have employed cross-sectional designs with
established supervisor-subordinate dyads. Liden and Mitchell (1988) and Tedeschi and
Melburg (1984) argued that impression management can be used for either short-term or
long-term purposes. They also made a clear distinction between tactical impression
A vast array of impression management strategies have been reported in the relevant
literature. Many of these focus on defensive tactics typically used in response to poor
impression management tactics are used by individuals to establish a particular identity for
an audience and are not merely a reaction to situational demands (Liden & Mitchell, 1988;
management that provides the focus for this study. Self-presentation strategies, intended by
an individual, or agent, to make he/she more appealing to a target, are accomplished either
verbally or with nonverbal cues such as smiling, eye contact, and touching (DePaulo, 1992).
Other-enhancement refers to the favorable evaluation of, or agreement with, the target.
Flattery, favor-doing, and opinion conformity are common forms of other-enhancement that
have been shown to positively influence target individuals (Ralston & Elsass, 1989).
xxiv
The agent's objective in the use of all impression management strategies is to
favorably influence attributions made by the target. Because prior research has shown that
status targets (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992), subordinate impression
impression management.
behavior on performance ratings. In particular, Wayne and Ferris (1990), Wayne and Kacmar
(1991), and Ferris and colleagues (1994) found support for the relationship between
subordinate impression management behavior and supervisor performance ratings. The study
found that Influence tactics, affect, and produces exchange quality in Supervisor-subordinate
interactions although these studies have provided useful results; they have a number of
limitations. Specifically, the prior studies have been conducted either in laboratory settings in
which students were used as subjects or in field settings with established supervisor-
between impression management and performance ratings have emerged, the causal
short- or long-term goals (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). For example, a subordinate may do a
favor for a supervisor in the morning because the former plans to ask for the afternoon off.
xxv
In contrast, the subordinate may do favors for the supervisor over time in the hope of
management into initial impressions, encode them into memory, and later retrieve and
decode them when rating the subordinates' performance (Schneider, 1991). Successful
categorizing or recategorizing the subordinate (Schneider, 1991; Wood & Mitchell, 1981)
supervisors when the relationship between the two is developing. This time is when initial
categorization of the subordinate occurs (Feldman, 1986). In many cases, supervisors begin
to process information about a new subordinate before the individual's first day on the job, or
It has been found that interviewers, who are often the applicants' future supervisors,
interview (Dipboye, 1989). However, even at this early stage, applicants may use impression
xxvi
management to manipulate the information presented in their resumes and cover letters
announcing job candidacy (Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Impression management during actual
interviews may further influence the interviewers' information processing, either positively
Although initial impressions may be formed before the first day a supervisor and
subordinate work together, we suspect that in most cases, supervisors continue to engage in a
controlled processing mode when observing new subordinates' behavior on the job for the
first time (Feldman, 1986). In most cases, assimilation of a new subordinate should be
categorized a new subordinate as, for example, lazy may interpret the subordinate's use of
processing (Fiske, Neuberg, Beattie, & Milberg, 1987). Using this new positive information,
Because such controlled processing involves making attributions for the new
part on the basis of the subordinates' impression management behavior, the supervisors may
categorize the new employees as friendly, hard-working, and similar to themselves. This
categorization may compare favorably with the supervisors' prototype of ideal subordinate
behaviors.
xxvii
A match between prototype and processed information based on the subordinates'
impression management may positively influence the task assignments, feedback, resources,
and support the supervisors provide to the subordinates. This favorable treatment may cause
the subordinates' actual performance to be higher than that of others, and rating biases may
Greenwald (1980) argued that people strive to affirm their self-concepts. They may
accomplish this goal through the use of impression management, attempting to control or
manage the impressions that other people form so that those impressions are consistent with
their desired self-images (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Often exerting such control translates
into an attempt to behave in a way that will result in liking by a target. Research evidence
Noted, that "people find it hard not to like those who think highly of them".
focused impression management strategies. These include such strategies as flattery, which
doing favors for the supervisor. A supervisor who feels liked and admired by a subordinate
xxviii
In fact, a target's attraction to and liking of an agent has been the dependent variable
all those studies, researchers found agent use of flattery and favors to be related to target
affect for and attraction to the agent (Schlenker, 1980; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).
organizational situations has revealed similar results. For example, subordinate use of
attraction to subordinates (Kipnis & Vanderveer, 1971) and liking of the subordinates
to positive things that are said about them and to favors done for them (cf. Markus, 1980).
According to self-verification theory, people tend to be attracted to and to identify with those
who confirm the perceptions they have of themselves (Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler,
1992). Individuals tend to perceive themselves as similar to those who display attractive
behaviors, such as giving compliments (Lewicki, 1983). It follows that supervisors will see
themselves as being more similar to subordinates who compliment them and do favors for
boasting, and a host of nonverbal behaviors such as smiling, making eye contact, and
xxix
Self-presentation is viewed in terms of two strategies, self-enhancement and
supervisor will perceive favorably. An agent must be willing to assume risk when using self-
focused strategies because the influence attempt will backfire if the target interprets the self-
presentation as insincere (Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Subordinates who are consumed by
presenting themselves favorably may fail to devote enough effort to job duties (Baumeister,
1989), which results in negative supervisor reactions. As Cialdini and DeNicholas (1989)
wrote, "If there is an overarching lesson to be learned from the large body of work on
Research results indicate that agents often do not succeed in the use of self-focused
strategies, as is evidenced by neutral (Wayne & Ferris, 1990) or negative (Powers & Zuroff,
1988) target reactions. For example, in Powers and Zuroff's (1988) research, agents who used
self-focused impression management were less liked than were individuals who did not use
impression management. Given the extreme skill that appears to be needed in the use of self-
focused impression management tactics, we expect that most subordinates will not succeed in
A very consistent finding in the social psychology and organizational literatures is the
strong association between perceived similarity and liking. It follows that if supervisors do
not like subordinates who promote themselves, the supervisors will not perceive themselves
xxx
Psychologically healthy individuals tend not to identify with or perceive themselves
as similar to those they consider undesirable (cf. Cialdini & DeNicholas, 1989; Swann et al.,
1992).
Zajonc (1980) argued for the primacy of affect, suggesting that it dominates
organizations is that between subordinate and supervisor. Empirical support has been found
for Liden and Mitchell's (1988) proposition that affect plays a critical role in the type of
exchange that develops between supervisor and subordinate (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell,
1993; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). One implication of the importance of affect in subordinate-
supervisor interactions is that it may cause bias in a supervisor's treatment (Feldman, 1986)
Responding to calls by Landy and Farr (1980) and Mitchell (1983) for research on the
social context of performance ratings, researchers have conducted studies in which they
performance ratings (Judge & Ferris, 1993; Tsui & Barry, 1986; Wayne & Ferris, 1990).
xxxi
These studies are also important because they were among the first to integrate
cognitive information processing with the social context of performance rating (cf.
Schneider, 1991). However, the research reported in each of these studies was either
method variance is a concern because supervisors assessed their liking for and the
performance of the subordinates at the same time. And even if common method variance did
not influence the results, it is not known if positive interpersonal communication at one time;
Although the research that has appeared on the association between interpersonal
communication which results in liking and performance appraisal has been cross-sectional,
theory supports the argument that interpersonal communication will have an enduring effect
that will influence later performance ratings. French and Raven (1959) described being liked
as "referent power" that provides the liked individual with influence. Tedeschi and Melburg
(1984) noted that "on a long term basis there are many potential gains for the liked person",
which includes better communication, trust, and ability to influence. Specifically, liking may
influence supervisors' observation and storage of information over time as well as their recall
at the time they actually rate a subordinate's performance (DeNisi & Williams, 1988).
Supervisory liking of a subordinate may reflect job behaviors associated with good
job performance, such as the subordinate's friendliness toward customers and working well
with other employees (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). However, liking may also mask
xxxii
At least three biases resulting from liking or disliking a subordinate may influence a
supervisor's performance ratings. First, the supervisor may provide liked subordinates with
more resources and support than disliked subordinates, which may influence actual
subordinates' work behaviors over time, noticing and storing information concerning the
positive work behaviors of liked subordinates and the negative work behaviors of disliked
subordinates. Finally, when actually rating subordinates, supervisors will tend to recall the
positive work behaviors of liked subordinates and the negative work behaviors of disliked
subordinates.
The study of justice or fairness has been a topic of philosophical interest that extends
back at least as far as Plato and Socrates (Ryan, 1993). Colloquially, the term justice is used
constructed. That is, an act is defined as just if most individuals perceive it to be so on the
basis of empirical research (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Thus, “what is fair” is derived
from past research linking objective facets of decision making to subjective perceptions of
fairness.
antecedents and consequences of two types of subjective perceptions: (a) the fairness of
outcome distributions or allocations and (b) the fairness of the procedures used to determine
xxxiii
outcome distributions or allocations. These forms of justice are typically referred to as
distributive justice (Adams, 1965; Leventhal, 1976) and procedural justice ( Leventhal,
come under the rubric of organizational justice research (Greenberg, 1987, 1990). Greenberg
(1990) described organizational justice as a literature “grown around attempts to describe and
explain the role of fairness as a consideration in the workplace”. This literature includes both
field and laboratory research, and organizational justice has been among the most frequently
organizational behavior over the last decade (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997).
approaches used to study it, particularly in relation to procedural justice. These approaches
each propose a different way of conceptualizing justice, from the provision of process control
(Thibaut & Walker, 1975) to a focus on consistency (Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal et al., 1980)
and an examination of interpersonal treatment (Bies & Moag, 1986). In addition, a large
evaluations may also be based on the procedures by which the evaluations are determined
apart from the ratings received. However, Procedural justice research has focused largely on
procedural justice has emerged called interactional justice (Folger & Bies, 1989; Greenberg,
xxxiv
1993; Tyler & Bies, 1990), which refers to the interpersonal side of decision making,
specifically to the fairness of the decision maker's behavior in the process of decision
making. Decision makers behave in an interactionally fair manner when they treat those
affected by the decision properly and enact the decision policy or procedure properly (Folger
& Bies, 1989; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Table 1 shows the structural and social determinant of
treating people with courtesy and (b) showing respect. Proper enactment of procedures is
defined by five behaviors: (a) adequate consideration of the employee's input, (b) suppression
of personal biases, (c) consistent application of decision-making criteria (d) timely feedback,
and (e) justification for the decision. These interactional factors play an important role in
attitudes (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Schaubroeck, May, & Brown, 1994).
Procedural Distributive
Justice Justice
Systemic Configural
Structurally Concerns about procedures Concerns about the norms
Determined to assign raters, set criteria, that lead to ratings and the .
gather information and seek
appeals
Informational Interpersonal
Concerns about the way Concerns about the
Socially raters communicate with treatment that ratees receive
Determined their ratees. from their raters.
The purpose of this review is to examine the factors that might affect the extent to
xxxv
which subordinates and supervisors engage in interactionally fair behavior: i.e. the
critical for perceptions of fairness. Consideration refers to the extent to which the decision
maker acknowledges and considers the views and concerns of others affected by the decision
(Tyler, 1987). Justification refers to the extent to which an adequate explanation or account
subordinate's communication style can influence the extent to which the manager engages in
these behaviors. Therefore, the study proposes that an assertive communication style on the
part of the employee will evoke greater interactionally fair behavior on the part of the
manager.
justice is a field in need of integration. There have been a number of narrative reviews that
have sought to achieve such integration (e.g., Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Folger &
Conclusion
xxxvi
In summary, interpersonal communication and performance appraisal research,
The hypothesis in this study are intended to provide a critical filter necessary to
impression management early in the relationship with a supervisor induces liking and
perceptions of similarity, which in turn influence performance rating later and also encourage
a perception of fairness.
CHAPTER 111
xxxvii
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
subordinate’s communication style can affect his/her supervisor’s decision making during
performance appraisal and can affect the subordinate’s perception of fairness of the decision.
This proposition is based on the concept of interactional fairness and aims to promote an
organizational setup.
interpersonal communication in performance appraisal, this study will only examine the
supervisors perception of what will be described throughout this investigation. This chapter
describes the details of the study research method; its instrumentation and the method of
Research Method
There are several methods used when conducting communication research. Usually
it’s up to the researcher to identify a method best suited to the study, which will produce
reliable and validity results of the study. There are four types of research methods namely
experimental, surveys, observation and existing Data. These methods each have their
advantages and disadvantages, however there all allow researchers to know what evidences
xxxviii
to look for and directs them on how to obtain the evidence they need (Frey, Boton, Kreps,
2000).
This study finds the survey method most appropriate for gathering its data in the hope
According to Babbie (2005) survey research is probably the best method available in
research which is interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to
observe directly.
This is perhaps the dominant form of data collection in the social sciences, providing
for efficient collection of data over broad populations, amenable to administration in person,
by telephone, and over the Internet. Some forms of survey research by telephone or the
forces respondents to formulate opinions, masking the complexity of conflicting views and
unconscious biases within each respondent, and critics note that in many arenas (e.g., race
relations) survey items poorly predict actual behavior (Wimmer & Dominick, 1987).
Some notable advantages of Survey research are 1) It Can collect a lot of data with
relatively small expense, 2) Data comes from people in a “real world” situation which is
often a necessary first step before undertaking more elaborate research, 3) questionnaires
which is the instrument of data collection are easy to administer and they can determine the
value and relations of variables and constructs, 4) surveys can also be used to predict
behavior. Survey is not a perfect methodology, its technique also possesses several
xxxix
disadvantages such as 1) independent variables cannot be manipulated as in laboratory
experiments. This implies that without control of independent variable variation, the
researcher cannot be certain whether the relation between independent and dependent
variables are causal or non-causal 2) wordings of questions and placement of items within
questionnaires can have biasing effects on survey results 3) Usually not possible to study in
depth and 4) Findings frequently lack internal and external validity (Wimmer & Dominick,
1987).
Survey research method consists of two types of data collection instruments namely
type of statistical survey handed out in paper form usually to a specific demographic to
gather information in order to provide better service or goods, while interviews are
Both types of survey are self report measures that ask respondent to provide information
about their own or others belief, attitudes and behavior on a particular topic/issue (Newsted,
Questionnaires and interview are both very popular tools in communication research;
however this study will use questionnaires to collect its data. Questionnaires have advantages
over other types of surveys in that they are cheap, do not require as much effort from the
questioner as verbal or telephone surveys, and often have standardized answers that make it
simple to compile data. However, such standardized answers may frustrate users who do not
find options best suited to their opinions. Questionnaires are also sharply limited by the fact
that respondents must be able to read the questions and respond to them. Hence, for some
xl
An important purpose for using a survey research method is to be able to generalize
from a sample to a population, so that inference can be made about some characteristics,
attitude, or the behavior of the population (Babbie; 2005). Consequently, this method allows
hypothesis to be tested as the variables are measured by asking people questions. The
answers to the questions are than analyzed to examine the relationship among the different
variables. The variables in this study are performance appraisal, interpersonal communication
and perception of fairness. In analyzing these variables using the survey research method, the
Instrumentation
Instruments are formal measurement tools used to gather data concerning research
variables. In social research, variables are often operationalized as a means of determining its
measurement values when researchers ask questions as a way of getting data for analysis and
In survey research researchers frame and ask questions that serve as instruments of
used. This study uses a self administered questionnaire which will be completed by
performance appraisal & perception of fairness) that will be useful for analysis.
variables in these study two types of question could be formulated namely open – ended and
closed- ended questions. Open-ended questions ask the respondent to provide his/her own
xli
answers, for example respondent are provided with space to experiences their opinion about
an issues. In most cases qualitative interviewing relies on this method of questioning. Though
it’s advantageous in the senses that it gives respondent greater freedom of expression, no bias
due to limited response range and respondent can qualify their answers, it is equally
Close-ended question ask respondent to select an answer from among a list provided
by the researcher. They are more popular in survey research because they provide a greater
uniformity of responses, are easy to answer and are more easily processed than open-ended
questions. However they are also disadvantageous in that they can draw misleading
conclusions because of limited range of options (Babbie; 2005, Frey, Boton, Kreps, 2000).
This study will use closed ended questions through out the questionnaires since its
less time consuming in terms of coding the data and most importantly its easier for researcher
questionnaire will avoid double-barreled question (questions with multiple parts) which are
capable of rendering some question void. Questions will be relevant to the variables in
questions; questions will avoid biased items and terms and would avoid negative items.
with regards to particular statements bearing attributes of the various variables. The likert-
type scale was created by a renounced psychologist named Rensis Likert in 1932, it was
designed to measures the extend to which a person believes a particular statement. frey,
xlii
Botan and Kreps (2000) opined that likert scales are designed to measure the extents to
which a person believes a particular response – agree or disagree – to gauge the respondents
attitude towards a statement by choosing one category. The range employed in likert-type
scales often go from one extreme to the next with a neutral response in the middle.
demographics, while another section from the supervisor’s questionnaire asked questions on
skill assessment and the employee questionnaires on perceptions about raters and appraisal
The main goal of a scientific research is to describe the nature of a population. This
can be achieved through the investigation of an entire class or group however, the chance of
investigating an entire population is remote or non existent due to time and resources
constrain. The usual process in social science is to select a sample from the population.
The populations studied in this research are supervisors and subordinates within
Bowie State University; the population consists of faculty and staff who also double as
There are two types of sampling methods, namely the probability and nonprobability
sampling. Probability sampling refers to sample selected in accords with probability theory,
xliii
According to Babbie (2005) “…the key to generalization from a sample to a larger
population is probability sampling, which involves the important idea of random sampling.”
Random sampling involves selecting a sample in such a way that each person in the
population of interest has an equal chance of begin selected. These eliminate the chance of
researchers being biased during the selection process due to their opinions or desires within
Due to the amount of time available for the research it was impossible to directly
observe the communication exchange within the organization, therefore the survey research
method was very helpful in allowing the researcher collect data that can’t be directly
observed.
There are various techniques or design in random sampling such as simple random
sampling, systematic sampling, stratified sampling and cluster sampling. These techniques
allow little rooms for bias and have equal changes of picking any participant.
However, simple random sampling was used for this study. To obtain the sample size
the undergraduate catalog of Bowie State University was used, were all the names of faculty,
Consecutive Numbers were assigned to the people in such a way that each number has an
equal chance of being chosen. For the subordinates of the administrative units whom did not
have a ready list four people were randomly pick from each unit. Numbers were chosen until
mail. Each employee whom was pre-selected as participate in the research received a
xliv
questionnaire delivered to their work station. Appendix 1 shows the questionnaire for the
Reliability refers to the quality of measurement method that suggests the same data
would be collected each time in repeated observations of the same phenomenon, thus;
consistency in result found in a research study. Validity describes a measure that accurately
The validity and reliability of this study are discussed as it relates to the self designed
According to Frey et.d (2000) for a measurement to be considered valid, it must first
exhibit some form of reliability. The reliability of a measurement shows its dependability
given that it has a higher propensity to yield similar outcome when applied to different
population, context and time period. Measurement validity examines the ability of a
concepts being investigated. Thus the study questionnaire was designed to measure
Though the ultimate validity of a measure can never be proven, we may agree to its
relative validity based on face, criterion-related, content, construct, internal validly and
external validity. Content validity refers to the degree to which a measure covers the range
of meaning included within a concept. The self designed instrument replicate content validity
because the variables investigated are fully supported with their attributes. For instances
xlv
the study examines interpersonal relations, performance appraisal and performance of
fairness, consequently items on the instrument were relational to these various variables.
Frey et. (2000) refers to predictive validity as how well a measurement forecast or
predicts an outcome. The instrument created was used to measure how interpersonal
communication affects employee in the work place in two aspects: performance appraisal and
perception of fairness. Since it was assumed that interpersonal communication has a direct
effect on how supervisors rate subordinate performance, was that the instrument is valid if
results collected relates to higher performance appraisal and increased perception of fairness.
Babbie (2005) refers to face validity as a quality of an indicator that makes it seem a
reasonable measure of some variable. Thus the test should look like it is related to their
purpose because this promotes public acceptance of testing and it motivates participants to do
their best. The purpose of face validity is to allow researchers to ensure that the instrument
reflects the topic studied. Each question within the instrument deals with each of the
There are three techniques used in testing the reliability of a measurement instrument
such as the questionnaire used in this study. The techniques are multi-administration, single
A split-half reliability was be used to seek the reliability of the instrument. With this
assessment, the respondent’s answer on the instrument will be spited into two parts. The
answers are than compared and if there is at least 70% agreement between the two parts, then
the instrument is reliable. The method that will be used to slit the instrument in half will be to
slit between the odd and even items so as to main balance between questions.
xlvi
Statistical Measure of Analysis
The statistical measure of analysis enables researchers to take results and come to a
general conclusion based on descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. While descriptive
quantitative data, inferential statistics aims to estimate the characteristics of the population
gathered from the data in a sample and find the significant difference between groups and
significant statistical relationship between different variables (Frey, Boton & Kreps, 2000).
A measurement scale such as nominal and ordinal are used to assign levels and
degrees of variables to hypothesis which can be arranged hierarchically. Frey .et (2000)
Nominal measurement, therefore have no order (from highest to lowest) but simply
represents different categories. On the contrary, ordinal measurements are ordered and
represent hierarchical rating such as first, second and third, or highest, middle, lowest.
For the purpose of this study, ordinal measurement was used. The Statistical package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) software will be used to analyze the data obtained from
respondents of the survey. From the response, frequency, bivariate and cross tabulations will
be performed.
xlvii
According to Infante, Rancer and Womack (1997), research hypothesis represents the
prediction of the result of an experiment. Accordingly, the predication of results in this study
perception of them.
feelings of liking and admiration to a supervisor, and doing favors for the supervisor. While
opinion of his employee’s contacts with himself and others within the work place. The
its Independable variables and has performance appraisal as its dependent variable. This
increasing the level of acceptability of the appraisal. Since, every employee has an equally
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
xlviii
Introduction
The focus of the study was to examine how supervisor’s rate subordinates during
appraisal.
The research was based on the assumption that understanding the perception people
get from interpersonal communication with others, can lead to people been able to create
identities that is most seducing to positive responses from the interacting parties. In the
context of this study, this assumption suggest that supervisors are more likely to positively
rate subordinates whom they perceive to have good interpersonal skills and form an aura of
liking for them. While subordinates, are more likely to accept and consider their appraisal
report fair if they view their interpersonal treatment from their supervisors as positive. A
The purpose the study was to explore evidence that will support the hypothesis.
Statistical analysis of the research will be presented in this chapter, and the finding of the
study will be discussed. The research shows that interpersonal communication is significantly
related to employee perception of fairness of performance appraisal and also that supervisor’s
interpersonal communication.
In gathering the data for the study, one hundred and fifty questionnaires were
distributed to staff and faculties in Bowie State University of which eighty- five were given
to subordinates made of academic faculties, administrative and support staffs, the remaining
xlix
sixty-four were distributed to supervisors made up of academic and administrative heads.
Ninety-two percent of the survey made up of sixty supervisors and eighty- two subordinates
were completed and returned. Cluster sampling method was used in selecting the respondents
in the study, ensuring that every member of the population has an equal chance of being
selected.
Demographic Descriptions
includes both the supervisors and subordinates. Statistics shows that majority of the
supervisors that responded were male at 57.4%, while more female responded in the
subordinates category at 61.0%. Race shows that in both the supervisor and subordinates
surveys more African Americans responded followed other races not mention in the category
than the Caucasian. More supervisors reported rating between six to ten people, most which
were administrative heads of divisions and have been doing their jobs for between six to ten
years. In the subordinate category more employees have worked between one to five years
Supervisor’s Demographics
Figure 1
l
Gender of Respondents
60
50
40
Percent
30
20
li
10
60
50
40
Percent
30
20
10
0
MALE FEMALE
Male: 57.4%
Female: 41.0%
Figure 2
lii
Race of Respondents
60
50
40
Percent
30
20
10
0
African American Caucasian Others
Figure
Caucasian: 4.3%
Others: 39.3%
Figure 3
liii
Number of People Respondents Supervise
60
50
40
Percent
30
20
10
0
1-5 6-10 11-15 MORE16
1 -5: 23.0%
6 -10: 52.5%
11 – 15: 9.8%
Figure 4
liv
Kind of Supervisor
60
Percent
40
20
0
Academic Head Of Dept. Academic Dean Administrative Head
lv
Figure 5
60
50
40
Percent
30
20
10
0
1-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 more16
1 – 5: 31.1%
6 -10: 54.1%
11 – 15: 9.8%
lvi
Figure 6
Subordinate’s Demographics
Respondents Gender
Male 39.0 %
Female 61.0%
Figure 7
lvii
Race of Respondents
Figure 8
lviii
Respondents Length of Employment
1- 5 = 67.1%
6-10 = 8.5%
11-15 = 9.8%
Over 16 = 14.6%
Figure 9
lix
Respondents Type of Employment
Academic = 42.7%
Administrative = 57.3%
Findings
Hypothesis 1
lx
H1: Interpersonal communication will serve as a significant
predictor of favorable performance appraisal from supervisors.
The expectation of the study with regards to hypothesis 1 recognizes the importance
of the role of affects in human judgment. Evidence was also accumulated to the effect that
factors. The findings in support of this hypothesis were based upon the respondents’ reaction
to statements concerning interactions between supervisors and subordinates in the work place
Three variables were measured using the Non parametric Chi-square statistic
perception, and one dependent variable performance appraisal were used for the test.
The test revealed that H1 was supported. The findings suggest that there is a
significant relationship between the variables as table 2 shows. The significance level of the
relationship between the three variables is .001. In statistical analysis, Chi-Square values that
are less than .05 indicate that there is a significant relationship between the variables.
appraisal. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted and the null rejected. The findings are
illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2
Chi-Square Test
lxi
Questions:
13) Positive communication is when subordinates use pleasant voice tone and choice of
words when talking to me.
18) I'm likely to rate employee positively for high compatibility with me.
X2 = 8.408
df = 3
P = < .038
Questions:
18) I'm likely to rate employee positively for high compatibility with me.
X2 = 31.398
df = 9
P = .001
Hypothesis 2
lxii
Null Hypothesis 2: Perception of interpersonal communication from
supervisors will not correlate with employee perception of fairness of
performance appraisal.
In measuring hypothesis 2, the survey responds collected from the subordinates was
Correlation was found to be significant at the .01 level with r = .731 as shown in table
3.
Table 3
lxiii
Correlations
6) My rater
explains to
me the 5) My rater
standard understands the
used for requirements of
evaluation my work
6) My rater explains to Pearson Correlation 1 .731(**)
me the standard used for Sig. (1-tailed) .000
evaluation N 82 82
5) My rater understands Pearson Correlation .731(**) 1
the requirements of my Sig. (1-tailed) .000
work
N 82 82
CHAPTER V
lxiv
INTERPRETATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The proposed hypothesis in the study was tested and the findings were reported in the
preceding chapter. The assumption made in the study was looked at closely, and data was
collected in search of evidence that will result to the acceptance of the hypotheses. On
conducting a significant test with chi-Square and Pearson correlation, it was concluded that
concluded that hypothesis -2 was supported, implying that a significant relationship exist
communication.
Therefore, the predications made at the beginning of the study were supported. This
infers that communication that takes place between people in the work place generates
affective reactions which in most cases are often involuntary and effortless, as well as
irrevocable because of their subjective validity. The study suggests an acknowledgement that
affects/perception dominates social interaction thus “if I decide in favor of Mr. X is no more
apparent and the need to understand and use it to ones advantage becomes a challenge.
A look at the frequencies of the measured variables shows that the respondents’
lxv
perception about people and issues. It is evident that interpersonal communication creates
affective reaction either to the negative or positive within the work place.
Although the hypothesis for the study was supported, the limitations and
recommendations suggest that they are many areas open to future research. This chapter will
discuss in details the interpretations of the findings, limitations of the study and
Interpretations
performance appraisal and perception of supervisors in the workplace. The literature review
sited lots of studies concerning the relationship between supervisors’ affective regards for
subordinates and their performance appraisal rating. In general, the conclusions that may be
drawn from the study are that a rater’s affective regards for a ratee is associated frequently
with such correlations as higher rating, a higher quality relationship, less inclination to
punish poor performance, and greater halo and less accuracy. While the association between
liking and rating does not always occur, job performance is controlled if the perception of
appraisal ratings. The study also examined the influence of (1) interpersonal communication
lxvi
during performance appraisal. the data suggested a significant relationship between the
communication (IV), perception (IV) and performance appraisal (DV) using a Chi Square
test.
The chi-square statistic was used to test the fit between a theoretical frequency
distribution and a frequency distribution of observed data for which each observation may
fall into one of several classes. For instances, the hypothesis for this study predicted that
appraisal from supervisors. Chi square test was used to test the Independable variables
against the dependent variable to see how much resulting effects it has.
Based on the test, two conclusions of very high significant values were reached:
1. High degree of positive interpersonal communication (IC) (e.g. choice of words etc)
lxvii
The second hypothesis stated: perception of interpersonal communication from
appraisal.
A correlation analysis was done with the objective to measure the degree that two
continuous variables move together from one case to another. The test was run to explore
potential relationship between the variables and does not in anyway suggest a cause and
effect relationship.
The two variables tested were performance appraisal, perception of fairness and
level. This suggests that if supervisors communicated more with employees by taking them
through the appraisal process and giving them an opportunity to questions the appraisal it
The data also suggest that if employees were aware of some of the factors that
influence supervisor’s rating of their appraisal they may be more withing to use that
information to enhance their appraisal rating, which In turn will increase their fairness
perception of the rating. For instance questions (15) my performance appraisal is based on
the quality and quantity of my work and not my personality or position. 20.7% of respondents
strongly agreed, while 36.6% agreed making a total of 57.3% of respondents whom agree.
Question (16) supervisors give performance ratings that reflect, in part, their personal
likening or dislike of employees. 28% strongly agree and 31.7% agree making a total of 59%
and in questions (18) I’m of the opinions that improving my interpersonal communication
style will effects my performance appraisal positively 25.6% strongly agree and 50.0% agree
bring the total to 75.6% (refer to table appendix B subordinates frequency table).
lxviii
The above data suggest that a great number of respondent are a wear of factors that
influence their appraisal rating, however it does not tell if they have tried exploring its
Limitations
Some limitations as with any other study exist in the study. Though certain limitations
could affect the validity of a study, during this study appropriate measures were taken to
Due to the nature of the survey instrument which required respondents to answer all
than intended. The survey instrument pose further challenge as it does not collect data
regarding non-verbal communications and cues; thus respondents are focus to fall within
general categories which reflects the opinions and bias of the researcher.
The research instrument used was modified specifically for this study. Though a pre
test was performed to assess the reliability and validity of the instrument, never-the-less,
there is no previously developed and rigorously evaluated body of result for the instrument
used.
The survey questions deal with respondent attitudes towards supervisor and
subordinates interaction. The survey does not include question items that allow the
there may be a positive or negative reciprocity between the respondent’s behavior and the
lxix
The causal relationships between variables are unclear, and appear to have reciprocal
effects. This study does not act to determine the complete interactions and effects between
the variables.
The sample population was from within Bowie state University which is essentially
an academic unit. Therefore, the generalization of the findings is limited since other
Recommendations
influence their rating positively through interpersonal communication. Since the research has
influenced by a host of affective, motivational and interpersonal factors that are manifested
understand this social context and work around them for organizational effectiveness and
By applying theories and methods from non-traditional and organizational areas, the
present study provides a natural starting point for future research. First, researchers can
replicate the present study using a different field sample, because the influence of the social
context is more salient in a business organizational setting, context may exert a great
influence.
lxx
Second, previous research in performance appraisal accuracy has largely ignored the
possible influence of context at the instrument level. The research paradigm used in the
present study may be applied in future research to investigate other instrument level context
effects in performance appraisal. For example, I believe that these result may be due to a
context with an affective component to it. Future research should examine how context
induced by a scale that elicits affective responses influences contextual performance items.
While this study found some correlation between the variable discussed, it can not
clearly present a cause and effect relationship to the variables. In this regards there are a
For instance, the study can be expended to include factors such as levels of education
and exposure of both supervisors and subordinates. Factors such as organizational culture,
social affiliations such as politics etc can be considered to decide casual relationship between
variables to know precise factors that have reciprocal effects and determine complete
Appendix A- Instrument
Code________
Supervisor’s Questionnaire
lxxi
Perceptions of fairness: Interpersonal communication and performance appraisal in the
work place
I am a graduate student at Bowie State University studying for a masters degree in Organizational
Communication. The attached survey is part of my thesis research, which is a requirement for the
completion of the degree. The survey is intended to sample opinions of supervisors on how
interpersonal communication between them and their subordinates might impact on performance
appraisal. It involves individual perceptions of actions of people they relate to within the work place.
In this regard, there is no right or wrong answers to the questions on the survey; I’m only interested in
your views as they relate to you in the different scenarios presented. I’m not interested in your
identity, and all information provided will be used solely for the purpose of this study. For each
question, please simply circle the letter by the response that best represents your view. Thank you
very much for your time and cooperation.
Please mark the box that best reflects your view of factors that will positively influence your appraisal of
subordinates
strongly Agre Not strongly
agree e Sure Disagree disagree
6 Communication: Relevance and clarity of written and verbal
expression; effectiveness in exchanging ideas and information with others
in an appropriate manner; understanding what has been said; probing for
better understanding.
7 Creativity and Resourcefulness: Being a flexible problem solver;
understanding and working effectively with peers and upper management;
handling pressure and ambiguity; finding better ways of doing things;
generating new concepts, approaches, methods or applications.
8 Cooperation with Others: Working hard to understand others; getting the
cooperation of peers; not alienating others
9 Flexibility: Able to adapt to the needs of a fast paced work
environment; able to switch tasks when necessary to get the job
done.
Part 3: Perceptions
lxxii
strongly Agr Not strongly
agree ee Sure Disagree disagree
10
I’m of the opinion that through interpersonal communication
in the work place employees create their identity.
11
It is through employee’s interpersonal communication that I
shape my perception of my subordinates.
12 My perceptions of subordinate’s Interpersonal communication
skills influence my rating of their performance appraisal?
13 Subordinates who use pleasant tone of voice and choice of words when talking to me.
14
subordinates who tell me they appreciate my work
15 When I complain, and a subordinate thinks it’s an opportunity to remind me about their skills
and qualification.
16 A subordinate is quick to make excuses for problems they cause and try to blame it on others.
Code________
Subordinate’s Questionnaire
lxxiii
Perceptions of fairness: Interpersonal communication and performance appraisal in the
work place
Please mark the box that best reflect your view of your Supervisor (Rater) or the Appraisal process
strongly Agr Not strongly
agree ee Sure Disagree disagree
lxxiv
13 My rater lets ask him or her questions about my
performance rating
13 My rater gives me the rating that I earn even when it might
upset me.
14 The rating I get is a result of my rater applying
performance rating standards consistently across
employees.
15 My performance appraisal is based on the quality and
quantity of my work and not my personality or position.
16 supervisors give performance ratings that reflect, in part,
their personal like or dislike of employees
17 my rater treats me with dignity
18 Am of the opinions that improving my interpersonal
communication style will effects my performance appraisal
positively.
Appendix B
lxxv
Frequency Table Supervisor
Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MALE 35 57.4 58.3 58.3
FEMALE 25 41.0 41.7 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Race
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid AA 33 54.1 55.0 55.0
CC 3 4.9 5.0 60.0
OTHER 24 39.3 40.0 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1-5 14 23.0 23.3 23.3
6-10 32 52.5 53.3 76.7
11-15 6 9.8 10.0 86.7
MORE16 8 13.1 13.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Kind of supervisor
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid AHD 16 26.2 26.7 26.7
AD 6 9.8 10.0 36.7
AH 38 62.3 63.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
lxxvi
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1-5 19 31.1 31.7 31.7
6 - 10 33 54.1 55.0 86.7
11 - 15 6 9.8 10.0 96.7
more16 2 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
6) Communication
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 35 57.4 58.3 58.3
A 19 31.1 31.7 90.0
DA 4 6.6 6.7 96.7
SD 2 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 35 57.4 58.3 58.3
A 19 31.1 31.7 90.0
DA 4 6.6 6.7 96.7
SD 2 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 39 63.9 65.0 65.0
3 15 24.6 25.0 90.0
da 2 3.3 3.3 93.3
sd 4 6.6 6.7 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
9) Flexibility
lxxvii
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 33 54.1 55.0 55.0
A 21 34.4 35.0 90.0
DA 4 6.6 6.7 96.7
SD 2 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 20 32.8 33.3 33.3
A 30 49.2 50.0 83.3
NS 2 3.3 3.3 86.7
DA 8 13.1 13.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 14 23.0 23.3 23.3
A 22 36.1 36.7 60.0
NS 2 3.3 3.3 63.3
DA 22 36.1 36.7 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 12 19.7 20.0 20.0
A 26 42.6 43.3 63.3
NS 2 3.3 3.3 66.7
DA 20 32.8 33.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
lxxviii
13) Positive communication is when subordinates use pleasant voice tone and choice of words when
talking to me.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid YES 48 78.7 80.0 80.0
NO 12 19.7 20.0 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid YES 27 44.3 45.0 45.0
NO 33 54.1 55.0 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
15) Negative communication is subordinate reminding me about their skills and qualification.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid YES 38 62.3 63.3 63.3
NO 22 36.1 36.7 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
16) Negative Communication is subordinate making excuses and blaming others for problems they
cause.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid YES 46 75.4 76.7 76.7
NO 14 23.0 23.3 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
17) I'm likely to rate employee positively for effects of pass record.
lxxix
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 6 9.8 10.0 10.0
A 22 36.1 36.7 46.7
DA 23 37.7 38.3 85.0
SD 9 14.8 15.0 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
18) I'm likely to rate employee positively for high compatibility with me.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 8 13.1 13.3 13.3
A 23 37.7 38.3 51.7
DA 28 45.9 46.7 98.3
SD 1 1.6 1.7 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
19) I'm likely to rate employee positively for simple good traits.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 16 26.2 26.7 26.7
A 20 32.8 33.3 60.0
NS 4 6.6 6.7 66.7
DA 17 27.9 28.3 95.0
SD 3 4.9 5.0 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 7 11.5 11.7 11.7
A 4 6.6 6.7 18.3
NS 12 19.7 20.0 38.3
DA 28 45.9 46.7 85.0
SD 9 14.8 15.0 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
21) I'm likely to rate employee negatively for contrariness.
lxxx
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 6 9.8 10.0 10.0
A 14 23.0 23.3 33.3
NS 5 8.2 8.3 41.7
DA 29 47.5 48.3 90.0
SD 6 9.8 10.0 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
22) I'm likely to rate employee negatively for been different and non-conformist.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 7 11.5 11.7 11.7
A 7 11.5 11.7 23.3
NS 4 6.6 6.7 30.0
DA 27 44.3 45.0 75.0
SD 15 24.6 25.0 100.0
Total 60 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0
lxxxi
1) What is your gender?
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 32 39.0 39.0 39.0
Female 50 61.0 61.0 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid AA 62 75.6 75.6 75.6
CC 10 12.2 12.2 87.8
OTHER 10 12.2 12.2 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1-5 55 67.1 67.1 67.1
6-10 7 8.5 8.5 75.6
11-15 8 9.8 9.8 85.4
MORE 16 12 14.6 14.6 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid ACA 35 42.7 42.7 42.7
ADMIN 47 57.3 57.3 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 30 36.6 36.6 36.6
A 39 47.6 47.6 84.1
NS 5 6.1 6.1 90.2
DA 5 6.1 6.1 96.3
SD 3 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
lxxxii
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 20 24.4 24.4 24.4
A 40 48.8 48.8 73.2
NS 9 11.0 11.0 84.1
DA 10 12.2 12.2 96.3
SD 3 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 18 22.0 22.0 22.0
A 36 43.9 43.9 65.9
NS 7 8.5 8.5 74.4
DA 16 19.5 19.5 93.9
S 5 6.1 6.1 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 30 36.6 36.6 36.6
A 32 39.0 39.0 75.6
NS 7 8.5 8.5 84.1
DA 13 15.9 15.9 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 17 20.7 20.7 20.7
A 41 50.0 50.0 70.7
NS 5 6.1 6.1 76.8
DA 17 20.7 20.7 97.6
SD 2 2.4 2.4 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
lxxxiii
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 11 13.4 13.4 13.4
A 32 39.0 39.0 52.4
NS 5 6.1 6.1 58.5
DA 26 31.7 31.7 90.2
SD 8 9.8 9.8 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 13 15.9 15.9 15.9
A 37 45.1 45.1 61.0
NS 11 13.4 13.4 74.4
DA 16 19.5 19.5 93.9
SD 5 6.1 6.1 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 17 20.7 20.7 20.7
A 49 59.8 59.8 80.5
NS 8 9.8 9.8 90.2
DA 8 9.8 9.8 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 16 19.5 19.5 19.5
A 39 47.6 47.6 67.1
NS 11 13.4 13.4 80.5
DA 13 15.9 15.9 96.3
SD 3 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
14) The rating i get is a result of my rater applying PA rating standards consistently across employee
lxxxiv
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 15 18.3 18.3 18.3
A 30 36.6 36.6 54.9
NS 18 22.0 22.0 76.8
DA 11 13.4 13.4 90.2
SD 8 9.8 9.8 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 17 20.7 20.7 20.7
A 30 36.6 36.6 57.3
NS 15 18.3 18.3 75.6
DA 10 12.2 12.2 87.8
SD 10 12.2 12.2 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
16) My Supervisor gives PA that reflects in part his liking or dislike of employees
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 23 28.0 28.0 28.0
A 26 31.7 31.7 59.8
NS 20 24.4 24.4 84.1
DA 8 9.8 9.8 93.9
SD 5 6.1 6.1 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 20 24.4 24.4 24.4
A 47 57.3 57.3 81.7
NS 8 9.8 9.8 91.5
DA 7 8.5 8.5 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
18) Improving my interpersonal communication style will affect my performance appraisal positively.
lxxxv
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SA 21 25.6 25.6 25.6
A 41 50.0 50.0 75.6
NS 13 15.9 15.9 91.5
DA 6 7.3 7.3 98.8
SD 1 1.2 1.2 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Reference
lxxxvi
Adams, K.L (1981) Question/ answer adjacency pairs in a performance appraisal
interview. Journal of Applied communication Research, 9, 72-84
Arkin, R. M., Appleman, A. J., & Berger, J. M. 1980. Social anxiety, self-presentation,
and the self-serving bias in causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38: 23-35.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: The
influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 88-115.
Bernardin, H.J, Cooke, D.K & Villanova, P. (2000) Conscientiousness and agreeableness
as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 232-234.
Buss, D. M., Gomes, M., Higgins, D. S., & Lauterbach, K. 1987. Tactics of manipulation
. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1219-1229.
Cascio W.F. (1998). Applied Psychology in human resource management, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Cascio, W.F (1995) Applied Psychology in human resource management NJ: Prentice
Hall
Cardy, R.M. (1986). Affect and Appraisal Accuracy: Liking as an Integral Dimension
in evaluating performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 672-678
Cusella, L.P (1987) Feedback, motivation, and performance. In F.M.Jablin, L.L. Putnam,
K.H. Roberts & L.W.Porter (eds) Handbook of organizational communication. An
interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 624-678) Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Cleveland, J.N, Murphy, K.R & Williams, R.E (1989) Multiple uses of performance
Appraisal: prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,130-135
Cronen, V.E, Pearce, W.B & Changsheng. X (1989) The meaning of “meaning” in the
CMM Analysis of communication. A comparison of two traditions. Research on
lxxxvii
Language and social interaction, 23, 1-40
Denisi, A.S & Peter, L.H (1996) Organization of information in memory and the
performance appraisal process: evidence from the field. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 717-737
DeNisi, A.S, Cafferty, T.P & Meglino, B.M (1984) A cognitive view of the performance
appraisal process: A model & some research proposition. Organizational Behavior
and Human performance. 33, 360-396.
lxxxviii
and selection in organizations: methods and practices for recruitment and
appraisal, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 645-649.
Earl Babbie (2005) The Basics of social Research. 3rd edition. Thomson Wadsworth,
Canada
Erhart, J.F (1976) The performance appraisal interview & evaluation of student
performances in speech communication courses. Communication education, 25, 237-245
Feldman, J. M. 1986. A note on the statistical correction of halo error. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71: 173-176.
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. 1994. Subordinate
influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 101-135.
Ferris, G.R & Judge, T.A (1991) Personnel/ Human resources management: A political
influence perspective. Journal of management, 17, 447-488.
Fiske, S. T., Neuberg, S. L., Beattie, A. E., & Milberg, S. J. 1987. Category-based and
attribute-based reactions to others: Some informational conditions of stereotyping and
individuating processes. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 23: 399-
407.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. 1959. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),
Studies in social power: 150-167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Frey, Lawrence R.; Boton, Carl H; & Kreps, G.L (2000) . Investigating Communication:
An Introduction to Research Methods; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Geddes, D.& Linnehan , F (1996) Exploring the dimensionality of positive and negative
performance feedback. Communication Quarterly, 44, 326-344
Gergen, K.J & Kaye, J (1992) Beyond narrative in the negotiation of thematic meaning.
lxxxix
In S.McNamee & K.J Gergen (eds), Therapy as social construction (pp 166-185)
Landon Sage
Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. 1989. The politics of the employment interview. In R. W.
Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and
practice: 195-203. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Greenwald, A. G. 1980. The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history.
American Psychologist, 35: 603-618.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes
of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace:
Approaching justice in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Grote. D (1996) The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: AMACOM
Goldstein, L.L. (1993). Training in organization (3rd ed) pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Guion, R.M (1998) Assessment, Measurement and Prediction for personnel decisions
. NJ: LEA
Grote, D. (1996) The Complete Guide to Performance Appraisal. New York: AMACOM
Gergen, K.J (1985) Social constructionist inquiry: context and implications. In K.J
Gergen & K.E.Davis (eds) The social construction of the person (pp.3-18) New York:
springer Verlag
Hoffman, L. (1990) Constructing realities: an art of lenses family process, 29, 1-12
xc
Communication Theory. (3rd ed). Prospects heights, III: Waveland press Inc. 1990
Ilgen .D.R & Favero J.L (1985) Limits in generalization from Psychological research to
performance appraisal process. Academy of management review, 10, 311-321.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of performance evaluation decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 36: 80-105.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics:
Exploration of getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 440-452.
Kipnis, D., & Vanderveer, R. 1971. Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 17: 280-286.
Krayer, K.J (1987) Simulation method for teaching the performance appraisal interview.
Communication education, 36, 276-283
Krayer, K.J (1987) Simulation method for teaching the performance appraisal interview.
Communication education, 36, 276-283
Landy, F.J & Farr, J.L (1980) Performance Rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107
Levy, P.E & Williams, J.R (2004) The social context of performance appraisal: a review
& framework for the future Journal of management, 30, 881 -905
Longenecker, C., Sims, H & Giola, D (1987) Behind the mask: the politics of employee
appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. 1980. Performance ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 87: 72-107.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. 1990. Impression management: A literature review and
two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34-47.
xci
Academy of Management Review, 13: 572-587.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J. & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation
preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the
study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York:
Plenum.
Markus, H. 1980. The self in thought and memory. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher
(Eds.), The self in social psychology: 102-130. New York: Oxford University Press.
Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. 1985. Role of the self-concept in the perception
of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 1494-1512.
McGregor, D (1957b) The human side of enterprise In M.J.Handel (ed), The sociology
of organizations: classic, contemporary and critical reading (pp 108-113) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
Mitchell, T. R. 1983. The effects of social, task, and situational factors on motivation,
performance, and appraisal. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.),
Performance measurement and theory: 39-59. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mani, B.G (2002) Performance Appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: a case
study. Public personnel management; 31, 141-159
Murphy, K.R & Cleveland. J.N (1995) Understand performance appraisal: social,
organizational, and goal-based perspective, Thousand oaks, CA: Sage publication
Nathan, B.R & Lord, R.G (1983) Cognitive categorization and dimensional schemata: A
xcii
process approach to the study of halo in Performance rating. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 68, 102-114
O’Relly, C.A. III, & Anderson J.C (1980) Trust and the communication of performance
appraisal information: the effect of feedback on performance & job satisfaction.
Human Communication Research, 6, 290-298
Pearce, W.B (1992) A camper’s guide to constructism. Human System: The Journal of
systematic consultation & Management, 3, 139-161
Phillips, A. P., & Dipboye, R. L. 1989. Correlational tests of predictions from a process
model of the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 41-52.
Ralston, D. A., & Elsass, P. M. 1989. Ingratiation and impression management in the
organization. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management
in the organization: 235-247. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Remland, M.S & Jones T.S (1985) Sex differences communication consistency &
Judgments of harassment in a performance appraisal interview. Southern speech
communication journal, 50, 156-176.
Roger .D. Wimmer & Joseph .R. Dominick (1987) Mass Media Research: An
Introduction 2nd edition. Thomson Wadsworth, Canada
Schraeder .M & Simpson. J (2006) How similarity and Liking Affect Performance
Appraisals. Journal for Quality & Participation, 34-40
xciii
denigrating, and accurate self-presentations. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 18: 89-104.
Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R. & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and
employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 455-460.
Srull, T. K., & Gaelick, L. 1983. General principles and individual differences in the self
as a habitual reference point: An examination of self-other judgments of
similarity. Social Cognition, 2: 108-121.
Swann, W. B. 1982. Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self.
In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, vol. 2: 33-66. Hillside, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Swann, W. B., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. 1992. Why people self-verify. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62: 392-401.
Stewart, C.J & Cash W.B. Jr (1985) Interviewing: Principles & Practices (4th ed)
Dubuque, IA: WMC Brown Publishers
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
xciv
procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 333-344.
Tyler, T. R. & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of
procedural justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational
settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tsui, A. S., & Barry, B. 1986. Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of
Management Journal, 29: 586-599.
Thomas, S.L & Bretz, R.D, Jr (1994) Research and Practice in performance in America’s
largest companies. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 4, 28-34
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 487-499.
Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, M. K. 1991. The effects of impression management on the
performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 48: 70-88.
Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1981. Manager behavior in a social context: The impact
of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28: 356-378.
Williams, S.L, & Hummert, M.L (1990) Evaluating performance appraisal instrument
dimensions using construct analysis. Journal of Business communication 27, 117-
135.
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. 1992. Consequences of influence tactics used with
subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 525-535.
xcv