J BUSN RES

1989:19:215-226

215

Correlates of Performance Appraisal

Satisfaction Among Supervisory and
Nonsupervisory Employees
Abdullah Pooyan
Wright State University

Bruce J. Eberhardt
University of North Dakota

The predictors of performance appraisal satisfaction among supervisory and nonsupervisory employees were examined. The data were collected from 665 nonfaculty
supervisory and nonsupervisory employees in a midwestern state university. A
questionnaire was used to measure subjects perceptions regarding appraisal determinants, appraisal interview characteristics, supervisory behavior, and satisfaction with performance appraisal. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) followed by univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated that
supervisors were significantly more satisfied with performance appraisals and described their appraisals in more favorable terms as compared to nonsupervisors.
Stepwise regression analyses indicated that four appraisal determinant items, the
supervisors goal setting behavior, and his or her relations with subordinates accounted for 53% of the variance in appraisal satisfaction for the supervisory sample.
In the nonsupervisory sample, three appraisal determinants, two appraisal interview
items, the supervisors relations with subordinates, and his or her problem-solving
behavior combined to account for 57% of the variance. The limitations of the study
and the implications of the findings for research and practice in performance appraisal are discussed.
Introduction
The importance of employees attitudes toward various aspects of performance
appraisal systems has long been recognized (Landy et al., 1978; Latham and Wexley, 1981; Lawler, 1967). Previous research has attempted to identify characteristics
of appraisal systems and processes that are related to employee satisfaction with
the system and process. Landy et al. (1978) examined appraisal systems in general
and found that employee perceptions of appraisal process fairness and accuracy

Address correspondence to: Abdtdlah Pooyao, Management Department, Wright

45435.

Journal of Business Research 19, 215-226 (1989)

0 1989 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1989
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

State University.

Dayton,

0~

0148-2963/89/$3,50

216

J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

A. Pooyan and B. J. Eberhardt

were a function of the frequency of evaluation,

identification
of goals to eliminate
weaknesses,
and supervisor knowledge of the subordinates
job duties and performance. Dipboye and de Pontbriand
(1981) also investigated
the possible correlates
of employee reactions to performance
appraisals and appraisal systems in general.
While statistically
controlling
for the perceived favorability
of the appraisal,
they
found that discussions
of plans and objectives,
being evaluated
on job relevant
factors, and the opportunity
to express ones own side of the issues were strong
predictors of employee attitudes toward the appraisal process and system.
Other researchers have concentrated
on identifying the correlates of satisfaction
with the appraisal interview.
Greller (1975), in a two-part study, found that the
invitation
to participate
and goal-setting
activity were significantly
correlated
with
appraisal satisfaction.
In another study of employee participation
in the appraisal
interview, Greller (1978) found that a sense of ownership was the strongest predictor
of employee satisfaction with appraisal. According to Greller, a sense of ownership
refers to the acceptance
of responsibility
by the subordinate.
Burke et al. (1978)
studied the effects of eight interview
process variables on the appraisal-related
attitudes of 270 nursing personnel.
A helpful and constructive
supervisor,
an opportunity
to present ideas and feelings, setting future objectives,
resolving job
problems,
and the influence of the interview in planning
self-development
were
positively related to satisfaction with the review process and the perceived fairness
of the review.
Despite the ever-increasing
amount of research on employee attitudes toward
performance
appraisal, there has been a noticeable
lack of empirical studies comparing supervisory
and nonsupervisory
employees reactions to appraisal systems.
Mount (1983, 1984) looked at both employee and managerial
reactions to appraisal
systems. However,
these studies assessed managers
attitudes
toward appraisals
from their perspective
as the providers of the appraisal (raters perspective).
The
employees,
on the other hand, responded from the perspective
of the focus of the
appraisal (ratees perspective).
Mount (1984) found that the predictors of overall
satisfaction
with an appraisal system were similar for managers and employees
in
the context described above. The correlates of the perceived quality of the appraisal
discussion,
however, were different for managers and employees.
One objective of the present study was to fill a gap in the existing literature
on
employee attitudes toward performance
appraisal. Specifically, the attitudes toward
and perceptions
of performance
appraisals of supervisory
and nonsupervisory
employees were compared.
Unlike the Mount studies (1983, 1984), both types of
employees responded to questionnaire
items from the ratees perspective.
In other
words, both supervisors
and nonsupervisors
described their perceptions
and attitudes about how they, personally,
were appraised.
Any significant differences
between supervisory
and nonsupervisory
reactions
toward performance
appraisal
could have important
implications
for the design and implementation
of appraisal
systems in organizations.
Given the potential
differences
between supervisory
and nonsupervisory
employees on such variables as level of career aspirations and knowledge of and degree
of involvement
in the appraisal
process, it is not unreasonable
to expect that
differences in attitudes toward performance
appraisal may exist. For example, one
may discover that discussions
of goal achievement
and career development
are
more important
for supervisory
employees
than for nonsupervisory
employees

Employee Performance Appraisal Satisfaction

J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

217

because of the heightened career aspirations. In addition, it is likely that supervisory

employees have a greater knowledge and understanding of appraisal processes
because of their greater involvement with appraisal systems. This enhanced knowledge could result in different expectations of the appraisal process and, therefore,
different attitudes than those held by nonsupervisory personnel.
Discovery of the significant predictors of appraisal satisfaction for both supervisory and nonsupervisory employees would be useful in determining the characteristics of the appraisal system that should be stressed for each group. The present
study focused on two main aspects of the performance appraisal process in identifying potential correlates of performance appraisal satisfaction. The perceived
bases or determinants of the appraisal and appraisal interview behaviors were
examined. While the role of appraisal interview behaviors in appraisal satisfaction
has been studied previously (Burke et al., 1978; Greller, 1975), the perceived
determinants of appraisals have not.
Another concern of the present study was the effects that related organizational
activities and behavior have on employee attitudes toward performance appraisal.
An appraisal system is not an isolated activity unrelated to other activities within
the organization. The effectiveness of the appraisal process often depends not only
on the technical attributes of the appraisals but also on the broader organizational
and managerial context. There are numerous factors that make up the organizational context within which the appraisals take place. Top management support,
organizational policy concerning the use of appraisal information, job characteristics, supervisory behavior, and the external environment are examples of these
variables.
Supervisors play a crucial role in the success or failure of any appraisal system.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect attitudes toward and perceptions of ones
supervisor to play an important role in determining an employees reaction to
performance appraisal. Fulk et al. (1985) found that an employees trust in his or
her supervisor was significantly related to the perceived fairness and accuracy of
the performance appraisal. Additionally, Greller (1975) recommended that research be conducted to examine the context in which an appraisal takes place. He
suggested that the effects of such factors as types of supervision, task feedback,
and job design be studied. The second objective of the present study was to determine the effect perceptions of supervisory behaviors have on employees attitudes toward performance appraisal for both supervisory and nonsupervisory
employees.

Method
Sample and Setting
The sample consisted of 665 nonfaculty employees in a midsized state university
located in the midwest. There were 257 supervisory/managerial
and 408 nonsupervisory employees in the sample. The average age of the supervisory sample
was 37 years, while the nonsupervisory sample had a mean age of 34.6 years. The
average job tenure was 4.95 and 3.98 years for the supervisory and nonsupervisory
samples, respectively. The supervisory sample had an average of 15.20 years of
education compared to 13.74 years for the nonsupervisory sample. Statistical tests

218

J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

A. Pooyan and B. J. Eberhardt

conducted
on these demographic
variables indicated that the supervisory
sample
was older, had longer job tenure, and was more educated (p 5 0.001). Sixty-one
percent of the supervisors were women compared to 69% of the nonsupervisors.
Because of the similarity in the appraisals of supervisors
and nonsupervisors
in
the present setting, a direct comparison
of their attitudes
toward performance
appraisal can be made readily. The appraisal format for both groups of employees
was a traditional
graphic rating scale. Both rating scales consisted of nine singleitem dimensions
of performance
and one item for a rating of overall job performance. Each item was responded to on a lo-point scale. Four separate descriptive
anchors were provided for each lo-point scale. The supervisory and nonsupervisory
forms had in common the following seven dimensions:
quality of work, quantity
of work, leadership,
knowledge
of work, adaptability,
dependability,
and cooperation. Initiative
and work attitude were performance
dimensions
unique to the
nonsupervisory
rating form, while judgment
and self-development
appeared only
on the supervisory
form.
In addition to the format similarities,
the formal process of performance
appraisals for supervisory
and nonsupervisory
personnel
was identical.
Formal appraisals were conducted once a year for both groups. In the first stage of the process,
the employees immediate supervisor completed the appraisal form. All employees
were then given the opportunity
to review the ratings. Next, the supervisors
discussed the ratings with the ratees and provided performance
feedback. Finally, the
ratee signed the ratings form which indicated
that he or she had reviewed the
evaluation
and had the opportunity
to discuss it with his or her supervisor.

Procedure
Survey questionnaires
were distributed
to 1,500 supervisory
and nonsupervisory
employees throughout
the university via campus mail. Supervisory
and nonsupervisory employees were asked to complete the same questionnaire,
which was designed to assess their perceptions
regarding
their own performance
appraisal.
Responses
were anonymous
and confidential.
Participants
were asked to return
the completed
questionnaires
directly to the researchers
in envelopes which were
provided. A total of 665 usable questionnaires
were received, which represented
a 44% response rate.

Measures
appraisal was
Performance Appraisal Satisfaction. Satisfaction with performance
measured
by a 4-item scale taken from Lawler (1981). Subjects responded
by
indicating their agreement or disagreement
on a 7-point Likert-type
scale. Subjects
scores on the scale were calculated by averaging their responses to the items. The
reliability (coefficient alpha) for this scale was .82.
Appraisal Determinants. Subjects perceptions
of the determinants
of their performance appraisal were assessed by seven Likert-type
items developed by Lawler
(1981). Subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which each item was the basis
of their performance
appraisal.
Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging

Employee

Performance

Appraisal

Table 1. Means, Standard

Nonsupervisory
Samples

J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

Satisfaction
Deviations,

and F Values of All Variables

Supervisors

Appraisal determinant items

My evaluations are based on
1. The results I achieved
2. My job related behaviors
3. My skills and abilities
4. My personality
and personal
characteristics
5. Things I can control
6. Predetermined
goals
7. General impressions

219

for Supervisory

Nonsupervisors

and

ANOVA

SD

SD

4.77
4.95
5.02

1.45
1.35
1.53

4.17
4.51
4.46

1.51
1.41
1.54

18.49
10.98
13.14

4.78
4.21
3.79
4.46

1.46
1.60
1.68
1.45

4.52
3.83
3.54
4.22

1.46
1.51
1.52
1.45

4. 14h
6.16h
2.68
3.83

3.13

1.68

2.81

1.55

2.16

3.00
4.29

1.72
1.70

2.70
3.79

1.62
1.62

1.60
10.28

3.45
3.30

1.74
1.75

3.49
3.40

1.60
1.56

.Ol
.41

2.78

1.67

2.63

1.62

.54

3.16

1.72

2.96

1.72

1.01

3.83
4.19
4.31
4.33

1.27
1.44
1.35
1.57

3.91
4.09
3.93
3.69

1.40
1.61
1.58
1.68

.59
.92
7.07
20.33

4.60

1.25

4.32

1.32

Appraisal interview items

Interview included discussion of
8. My career and personal

development
9. Specific career

development

goals

for me
10. Strength in my past performance
in my past
11. Weaknesses
performance
12. Ways to improve performance
13. Things my supervisor could do to
aid me in performing
better
goals
14. Setting future performance
for me
Supervisory
behavior scales
15. Goal setting
16. Problem solving
17. Subordinate
relations
18. Participation
19. Satisfaction

with performance

appraisal

Abbreviations:
M, mean; SD, standard deviation.
Sample sizes range from 230-240 for the supervisory
hp 5 0.05.

sample and 365-398

for the nonsupervisory

5.146

sample.

<p5 0.001.

from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (To a very great extent).

items is provided in Table 1.

A complete

list of these

Appraisal lnrerview Behaviors. Subjects perceptions of the appraisal interview

were measured by a Likert-type scale constructed by Lawler (1981). Subjects were
asked to indicate how much each of eight items were discussed during their most
recent appraisal interview. Subjects responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging
from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (To a very great extent). A complete list of these
items is provided in Table 1.
Perceptions of Supervisory Behaviors. Perceptions of supervisory behavior were
measured by the supervision module from the Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire originally developed by Seashore et al. (1982). The complete su-

220

J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

A. Pooyan and B. J. Eberhardt

pervision module is composed of 30 items measuring

10 aspects of supervision,
as
perceived by subordinates.
Four aspects of supervision
containing
13 items were
selected for the purpose of this study. The aspects selected for study, because of
their relevance to performance
appraisal,
included goal setting, problem solving,
subordinate
relations,
and participation.
Responses to the items were on 7-point
Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Subjects
scores on each of the four scales were calculated by averaging their responses. The
goal setting scale consisted of three items with a reliability
coefficient (alpha) of
.79. The items measured the degree to which supervisors
set clear goals for subordinates and ensured that the subordinates
understood
how to accomplish
their
goals. The problem solving scale was comprised
of two items with a reliability
coefficient of 81, The items in this scale measured the degree to which supervisors
help subordinates
discover and solve work-related
problems.
The reliability coefficient for the 6-item subordinate
relations scale was .93. Representative
items from
this scale included the supervisors fair treatment of subordinates,
his or her awareness of subordinates
feelings, and his or her respect for subordinates.
The participation scale included two items and had a reliability coefficient of .79. The items
in this scale assessed the degree to which supervisors
encourage
subordinates
to
participate
in important
decisions and to speak up when they disagree with a
decision.

Results
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations
of all variables for both the
supervisory
and nonsupervisory
samples. Because of the degree of correlation
among the variables, differences between the sample means of the two groups were
tested through the use of a multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA).
The
employees supervisory/nonsupervisory
status was used as the independent
variable,
while all the appraisal-related
items and the four supervisory
behavior scales were
treated
as dependent
variables.
The MANOVA
produced
a significant
Wilks
Lambda (.895) with an approximate
Fvalue of F = 3.01 (P 5 0.001). The significant
MANOVA
was followed by a series of ANOVAs.
Table 1 presents the F values
obtained
from the ANOVAs.
Significant
differences
were found on five of the
appraisal determinant
items and one of the appraisal interview items. Supervisors
perceived that their appraisal was based to a greater extent than the nonsupervisors
on the following items: results achieved, job-related
behaviors,
skills and abilities,
personality
and personal characteristics,
and things that can be controlled.
Supervisors also perceived that their performance
strengths were discussed to a greater
extent than did the nonsupervisory
employees.
Differences
on two of the four
supervisory
behavior variables were also significant.
Supervisors
perceived
their
supervisors more favorably in terms of subordinate
relations and participation
than
did nonsupervisors.
Finally, supervisors were more satisfied with the performance
appraisal process than were the nonsupervisory
employees
(F = 5.14, p 5 0.05).
Table 2 provides the zero-order
correlations
between performance
appraisal
satisfaction
and its potential
correlates
for the supervisory
and nonsupervisory
samples. The differences between the supervisory
and nonsupervisory
correlations
were tested by using Fishers R to Z transformation
method. None of the 18 pairs
of correlations
(14 items and 4 scales) were significantly different from one another.

Employee

Performance

Appraisal

Table 2. Zero-Order
and Suervision-Related
Supervisory Sample

J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

Satisfaction

221

Correlations
Between Appraisal Determinants,
Appraisal Interview
Scales, and Appraisal Satisfaction in Nonsupervisory
and
Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal
Nonsupervisory

Appraisal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

determinant

Appraisal
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

interview

All

correlations

49
.47
.53
.32
.38
.37
&4

50
.44
.52
.30
.46
.49
_11

.41
.37
.44
_07
.22
.32
.26

.35
.31
.42
_06
.29
.36
.34

,158
.60
.66
.59

.57
.48
.57
.43

_06
-.12
_06

-_os
-.09

sizes range from

description

Sample

item?

Personal variables
1. Age
2. Education
3. Job tenure

bFor

Supervisory

items

Supervisory
behavior scales
15. Goal setting
16. Problem solving
17. Subordinate
relations
18. Participation

Sample

Sample

of items

365 to 398 for the nonsupervisory

sample

and from

230 to 240 for the supervisory

sample.

refer to Table 1.

are significant

at p 5

.05 except

those which

are underlined.

Also, these results show that the four supervisory behavior variables and all but
two of the appraisal-related items were significantly correlated with employee appraisal satisfaction.
Interitem correlations among the 14 appraisal-related items were calculated in
order to investigate the potential for multicollinearity among the independent variables. The complete correlation matrix is not reported because of space considerations; however, the average interitem correlations were calculated by averaging
the corresponding Z scores of the correlation matrixes for the nonsupervisory and
supervisory samples. Despite the fact that some degree of intercorrelation would
be expected between the appraisal determinant and appraisal interview items, the
average correlations were not particularly high. In the nonsupervisory sample,
correlations ranged from .02 to .44 with an average correlation of .24 and standard
deviation of .lO. In the supervisory sample, correlations ranged from .OO to .41
with an average correlation of .25 and standard deviation of .ll. The average
correlations among the four supervisory behavior variables and all appraisal-related
items were also calculated using the same procedure. Intercorrelations in the nonsupervisory sample ranged from - .02 to .48 with an average of .29 and standard

222

J BUSN RES

A. Pooyan and B. J. Eberhardt

1989:19:215-226

Table 3. Summary of Stepwise Regressions

In Nonsupervisory

Predictor
Nonsupervisory

Predicting Performance

Appraisal Satisfaction

and Supervisory Samples

Beta

dF

F Step

.27
.16

.43
.51

1,298
1,297

232.17h
sO.97b

.I6

.53

1,296

ll.16*

.I4
.22

.54
.56

1,295
1,294

9.25
9.63

.I0

.56

I.293

5.W

.08

.57

1,292

4.73d

.29
.23
.I6
-.I3
.I4
.I5

.33
.46
.48
.50
.52
.53

1,193
1,192
1.191
1,190
1,189
1,188

95.55h
48.80
7.59
5.05
6.40
4.24

Variables

sample

17. Supervisors
relations with subordinates
3. My evaluations
are based on my skills and abilities
1. My evaluations
arc based on the results I achieved on my
job
8. Appraisal
interview included discussion of my career and
personal development
16. Supervisors
problem solving
4. My evaluations
are based on my personality
and personal
characteristics
1 I. Appraisal
interview included discussion of weaknesses
in my
past performance
Supervisory
sample
15. Supervisors
goal setting
3. My evaluations
are based
6. My evaluations
are based
7. My evaluations
are based
2. My evaluations
arc based
17. Supervisors
relations with
Numbers refer to the variable
o.nn1.

on my skills and abilities

on predetermined
goals
on general impressions
on my job related behavior
subordinates

numbers

in Table

I.

p 5

deviation of .lO. In the supervisory

sample, correlations
ranged from - .04 to .51
with an average of .27 and standard deviation of .ll. The interitem
correlations
indicate that there is no serious multicollinearity
among the predictor variables.
However, zero-order
correlations
cannot reveal the relative contribution
of each
item to the prediction
of appraisal satisfaction.
Stepwise regression
analyses were conducted
to determine
the relative contribution of all appraisal-related
items and supervisory
behavior
variables
to the
prediction
of performance
appraisal satisfaction
for both supervisory
and nonsupervisory
employees.
Performance
appraisal satisfaction
was regressed on the
seven appraisal determinant
items, the seven appraisal interview items, and the
four supervisory
behavior variables.
Table 3 summarizes
the results of the regression
analyses.
A total of seven
predictor variables combined
to account for 57% of the variance in performance
appraisal satisfaction
for the nonsupervisory
sample. Two supervisory
behavior
variables,
three appraisal determinant
items, and two appraisal interview
items
contributed
significantly
to the regression model. By far, the most significant predictor of performance
appraisal satisfaction
was the supervisors
relations
with
subordinates,
which accounted for 43% of the variance. The supervisors problem
solving behavior was also a significant predictor of the criterion variable.
In addition, evaluations
based on skills and abilities, job results, and personality/personal
characteristics
were significant predictors of performance
appraisal satisfaction
for
the nonsupervisors.
Finally, discussions
of the subjects career and personal development
during the appraisal
interview
had a positive impact on his or her

Employee Performance

Appraisal Satisfaction

J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

223

satisfaction with performance

appraisal. Discussion of weaknesses in his or her job
performance,
however, had a negative influence on appraisal satisfaction.
The stepwise regression analysis for the supervisory
sample yielded somewhat
different
results. Six predictor
variables
accounted
for 53% of the variance
in
satisfaction with performance
appraisals for the supervisors.
These predictors consisted of four appraisal determinant
items and two supervisory
behavior variables.
Their supervisors goal setting behavior was a significant predictor and accounted
for 33% of the variance in the criterion variable. Their supervisors
relations with
subordinates
were also a significant predictor but accounted for only an additional
1% of the variance. Evaluations
based on skills and abilities, predetermined
goals,
general impressions,
and job-related
behavior were also significant predictors
of
performance
appraisal satisfaction and together accounted for 19% of the variance.
However, it should be noted that the general impression
item had a negative beta
weight. None of the appraisal interview items contributed
significantly
to the prediction of appraisal satisfaction
for the supervisory
sample.

Disc :ussion
Despite the growing number of studies investigating
employee
attitudes toward
performance
appraisal,
relatively
little is known about differences
in appraisal
attitudes between supervisory
and nonsupervisory
employees.
The present study
was designed to compare the perceptions
of and attitudes toward a performance
appraisal process of these two groups of employees.
Comparison
of means and
stepwise regression
analysis were used to assess the degree of similarity and difference between the supervisory
and nonsupervisory
employees.
The MANOVA
and subsequent
ANOVAs
that tested the differences
in perceptions of the two employee groups on appraisal determinants,
appraisal interview
behaviors, general supervisory behavior, and appraisal satisfaction reveal numerous
significant differences.
Examination
of these differences indicates that supervisors
tend to perceive the performance
appraisal process more favorably and are more
satisfied with the performance
appraisal process than are nonsupervisory
employees. Supervisory
employees also tend to describe their supervisors
more favorably
with regard to subordinate
relations and participation.
There were no significant
differences between supervisory and nonsupervisory
employees with respect to the
goal-setting
and problem-solving
behavior
of supervisors.
A review of the two
groups responses to the appraisal determinant
and appraisal interview items suggests that supervisors perceive that they are receiving technically sounder appraisals
than do the nonsupervisors.
There are at least three possible explanations
for this
finding. First, the ability of higher-level
employees whose subordinates
also have
supervisory
responsibilities
may be greater so that they are able to provide more
effective performance
appraisals. A second explanation
is that supervisors may be
more motivated
to provide sound appraisals to subordinates
who also supervise.
A third explanation
is that supervisors
who are themselves
raters and are aware
of the difficulties involved in the appraisal process, identify and empathize
with
their own raters and, therefore, tend to be more satisfied with the appraisal process
than are nonsupervisors.
Research should be conducted
to determine
the validity
of these three explanations
of the present findings.
The results of the regression analyses suggest that both similarities
and differ-

224

J BUSN

RES
1989:19:215-226

A. Pooyan and B. J. Eberhardt

ences exist between supervisory

and nonsupervisory
employees
on the predictors
of performance
appraisal satisfaction.
In the supervisory
sample, aspects of the
appraisal interview did not account for any variance in appraisal satisfaction
over
and above the variance accounted for by the appraisal determinants
items and the
supervisory behavior variables. However, in the nonsupervisory
sample, discussion
of career/personal
development
and weaknesses
in employees
past performance
together accounted for an additional
2% of the variance in the criterion variable.
Note that discussion of weaknesses in the employees past job performance
had a
negative impact on their appraisal satisfaction.
This finding is consistent with findings reported by Greller (1978), who found that criticism of subordinates
performance was negatively correlated
with appraisal satisfaction.
The present findings
would suggest that aspects of the appraisal interview may be more important
for
nonsupervisory
employees than for supervisory
employees.
An alternative
explanation for the present findings is that the inclusion of the supervisory
behavior and
the appraisal determinant
variables precluded the appraisal interview items from
contributing
significantly
to appraisal
satisfaction
for the supervisory
sample.
Clearly more research is needed to investigate
the validity of these explanations.
However, the significant findings in the nonsupervisory
sample are consistent with
the results reported
by Burke et al. (1978), who concluded
that the appraisal
interview is very important
in determining
employee appraisal satisfaction.
There were both similarities
and differences between the supervisory
and nonsupervisory
samples with regard to the appraisal determinant
items that were significant predictors
of appraisal satisfaction.
Appraisals
based on the employees
skills and abilities and his or her job-related
behaviors/results
were significant
predictors of both groups appraisal satisfaction.
Evaluations
based on personality
and personal
characteristics
were positively
related to appraisal
satisfaction
for
nonsupervisory
employees,
while evaluations
based on predetermined
goals and
general impressions
were significant predictors of satisfaction
for the supervisory
group. However, the general impressions predictor had a negative beta coefficient.
There were differences between the supervisory and nonsupervisory
samples on
the supervisory
behavior variables that contributed
to the explanation
of satisfaction with appraisals.
For nonsupervisory
employees,
their supervisors
relations
with subordinates
accounted
for 43% of the variance,
while supervisory
goal
setting behavior
accounted
for 33% of the variance
in the criterion
variable
among supervisory
employees.
Apparently,
a supervisors
daily interactions
with
subordinates
play a significant role in determining
appraisal satisfaction
among
nonsupervisory
employees. This finding suggests that supervisors should be careful
to treat employees with respect and fairness, and they should constantly
be aware
of employee attitudes. It is not enough to show concern and to ensure fair treatment
of employees
only at the time of performance
appraisal.
Supervisory
employees,
on the other hand, seem to respond more favorably to the goal-setting
behaviors
of their supervisors.
Supervisory
relations with subordinates
was also a significant
predictor of appraisal satisfaction in the supervisory sample; however, it accounted
for only one percent of the additional variance in the criterion variable. This finding
suggests that while supervisor-subordinate
relations are a significant predictor of
appraisal satisfaction
in general, they appear to be more important
for nonsupervisory employees.
Results also indicate that employees in different organizational
levels may have different perceptions
concerning
the appropriate
supervisory
be-

Employee Performance

J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

Appraisal Satisfaction

225

havior in the performance

appraisal context. The present findings point out the
need for additional
research on the role of supervisory
behavior in the successful
implementation
of a performance
appraisal system.
The present study has both strengths and limitations.
One strength is the use of
appraisal determinants
and supervisory
behavior as predictors
of appraisal satisfaction. As mentioned
previously,
the existing research investigating
these two
categories of variables is quite limited. The results of the present study suggest
that they should be investigated
further. In particular,
the effects of additional
contextual
factors on appraisal satisfaction
should be examined.
Another strength
of the research is the use of a multiitem
(four items) scale for the criterion
of
appraisal satisfaction.
Mount (1983) identified the use of single-item
criteria as a
major limitation
in previous research.
A limitation of the present study is the use of single-item
measures of appraisal
determinants
and appraisal interview
behaviors.
The items related to appraisal
determinants
and the appraisal interview were considered independent
and did not
measure common factors. Nevertheless,
further research is needed to identify the
various dimensions
of the appraisal process and to develop reliable measurement
instruments
for these processes.
A further limitation of the present study is related to the generalizability
of the
findings. Participants
in the present study were employed
in a nonprofit,
public
institution
of higher education.
It is quite possible that performance
appraisals in
this type of organization
may have a less direct impact on administrative
decisions,
such as pay raises and promotions,
than in private, profit-oriented
organizations.
In a review of the performance
appraisal literature,
Bernardin
and Villanova (1986)
discovered
that in both laboratory
and field studies, the purpose of an appraisal
has significant effects on the ratings that are given. If there are significant differences
in the role performance
appraisals play in other personnel decisions between public,
nonprofit organizations
and private, profit-oriented
organizations,
the findings of
the present study may have limited generalizability
to the latter type of organizations. Future studies should investigate the generalizability
of the present findings
to other work organizations.
Additional
research is also needed to empirically
examine the potential differences in the performance
appraisal process of privateand public-sector
organizations.
The authors thank
proved the manuscript.

associate

editor

Ramon

J. Aldag

for helpful

suggestions

that substantially

im-

References
H. J., and Villanova, P., Performance Appraisal, in Generalizing from
Laboratory to Field Settings. E. A. Locke, ed., D. C. Heath and Company/Lexington

Bernardin,

Books, Lexington,

MA, pp. 43-62.

Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W., and Weir, T., Characteristics of Effective Employee Performance
Review and Development Interview: Replication and Extension, Personnel Psychology
31 (1978): 903-919.
Dipboye, R. L., and de Pontbriand,
R. D., Correlates of Employee Reactions to
Performance Appraisal and Appraisal Systems, Journal of Applied Psychology 66 (1981):
248-251.

226

BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226

A. Pooyan

and B. J. Eberhardt

Fulk, J., Brief, A. P., and Barr, S. H., Trust-in-Supervisor

and Perceived
Fairness and
Accuracy of Performance
Evaluations,
Journal of Business Research 13 (1985): 3Ol313.
Greller,
M. M., The Nature of Subordinate
Participation
Academy of Management Journal 21 (1978): 646-658.
Greller, M. M., Subordinate
Participation
and Reactions
of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 544-549.

in the Appraisal

to the Appraisal

Interview,

Interview,

Journal

Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., and Murphy, K. R., Correlates

of Perceived
Fairness and
Accuracy of Performance
Evaluation,
Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978): 751754.
Latham, G. P., and Wexley, K. N., Increasing Productivity Through Performance Appraisal,
Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1981.
Lawler,

E. E., Pay and Organization Development,

Lawler.
E. E.,
Performance,

Addison-Wesley,

Reading,

The Multi-trait
Multi-rater
Approach
to Measuring
Journal of Applied Psychology 51 (1967): 369-381.

Mount, M. K., Satisfaction with a Performance

Appraisal System and Appraisal
Journal of Occupational Behavior 5 (1984): 271-279.
Mount, M. K., Comparison
of Managerial
and Employee
Satisfaction
Appraisal System, Personnel Psychology 36 (1983): 99-l 10.

MA, 1981.

Managerial

Job

Discussion,

with Performance

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., and Cammann,

C., Observing and Measuring
Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice, Wiley, New York, 1982.