1989:19:215-226
215
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
State University.
Dayton,
0~
0148-2963/89/$3,50
216
J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226
J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226
217
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
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
J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226
Satisfaction
Deviations,
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
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.
5.146
sample.
<p5 0.001.
A complete
list of these
220
J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226
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
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
sample
and from
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
1989:19:215-226
In Nonsupervisory
Predictor
Nonsupervisory
Predicting Performance
Appraisal Satisfaction
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.
numbers
in Table
I.
p 5
Employee Performance
Appraisal Satisfaction
J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226
223
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
Employee Performance
J BUSN RES
1989:19:215-226
Appraisal Satisfaction
225
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,
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
in the Appraisal
to the Appraisal
Interview,
Interview,
Journal
Lawler.
E. E.,
Performance,
Addison-Wesley,
Reading,
The Multi-trait
Multi-rater
Approach
to Measuring
Journal of Applied Psychology 51 (1967): 369-381.
MA, 1981.
Managerial
Job
Discussion,
with Performance