SATISFACTION OR NOT?

(1)

SATISFACTION OR NOT?

A SURVEY FOR THE INFLUENCE OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK ON EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION WITH PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

PROCESS

20 March 2009

Ivo Volkers Student number: 1274686

University of Groningen

Msc, Faculty of Management and Organization, Human Resource Management Honingboomstraat 15

8924 EE Leeuwarden Tel: 0619618612

E-mail: ivo.volkers@gmail.com

Supervisors University: Prof. G.S. van der Vegt

(2)

ABSTRACT Satisfaction or not?

The aim of the present study is to provide insight on the leverage of performance feedback determinants on employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. The following questions are central to this study. First, to what extent do determinants of performance feedback influence employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process? Based on findings in previous studies, the focus in this study is on seven performance feedback determinants (satisfaction, usefulness, based on work performance, the nature and frequency of individual and group feedback). Second, to what extent does the level of rating and rater experience influence employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process? The data for this study were collected from a large industrial organisation in the Netherlands. The main conclusion is that the determinants together have a strong influence on the employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. Yet, not all determinants show a significant relation to this employee satisfaction, except the frequency of individual and group feedback and the nature of individual feedback. In spite of aforementioned, organisations should give attention to all the determinants to maintain or realise (a higher) employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

Keywords:

(3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 2

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 THEORY 7

2.1 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROCESS 7

2.2 PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK 9 2.3 REMAINING DETERMINANTS 15 3 RESEARCH METHOD 18 3.1 PROCEDURE 18 3.2 RESPONDENTS 19 3.3 MEASURES 19 3.4 DATA ANALYSIS 22 4 RESULTS 23 4.1 CORRELATION ANALYSIS 23

4.2 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS 24

5 DISCUSSION 26

REFERENCES 31

(4)

1 INTRODUCTION

Anyone working has been appraised on his or her work performance in a particular situation. This process of appraising performances is important to both the organisations and their employees.

A performance appraisal process fundamentally allows an organisation to measure and evaluate the behaviour and performance of employees over a specific period (Wiese en Buckley, 1998; DeVries et al., 1981). Performance appraisals are commonly conducted to let an employee know, by means of performance feedback, if his or her work meets the expectations of the manager and to see if an employee needs any development or training in certain areas (Boice and Kleiner, 1997). Performance appraisal is thus central to many personnel decisions (Landy, Barnes & Murphy, 1978:751).

The importance of performance appraisal for organisations makes it one of the most widely studied areas in industrial and organisational psychology (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). One research area deals with effectiveness of performance appraisal. These effectiveness studies have concentrated on three classes of criteria: (1) psychometric criteria (e.g. halo error, leniency), (2) utilization criteria (e.g. reward systems, promotion) or (3) qualitative criteria (e.g. satisfaction with an appraisal process, and other employee reactions) (Russell & Goode, 1998).

(5)

1998). However, it is suggested that employees’ reactions are equally or more important for overall viability of a performance appraisal process in comparison with the other criteria of effectiveness (Cawley, Keeping & Levy, 1998). Moreover employee satisfaction turns out to be the most frequently assessed employee reaction to a performance appraisal (Giles & Mossholder, 1990).

The reason for the importance of employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process can partly be found in the fact that studies show that employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process can influence productivity, motivation and bonding to an organisation (Ilgen, Fisher & Taylor, 1979; Cawley, Keeping & Levy, 1998). On the other hand dissatisfaction with an appraisal process can (potentially) result into “employee turnover, decreased motivation, and feelings of inequity” (Dobbins, Cardy & Platz-Vieno, 1990:620).

Aforementioned performance feedback is part of the performance appraisal process. Performance feedback can, to a certain extent, influence employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process. A study of Nemeroff and Consentino (1979) states that giving performance feedback is of influence on motivation, performance and employee satisfaction with the appraisal process. Employees are also more satisfied with an appraisal process that provides clear and substantial performance feedback than with systems that provide less feedback (Dobbins et. al., 1990).

(6)

(7)

2 THEORY

2.1 Performance appraisal process

A performance appraisal process concerns not only the support and development of employees but also the daily management in an organisation (den Hartog, Boselie en Paauwe, 2004). Within this process managers work together with employees, for example to improve employee performance, with the ultimate goal of positively influencing the success of an organisation. Therefore, the performance appraisal process must ensure the employee understanding of how his performance contributes to this success (Boice & Kleiner, 1997). This understanding and knowledge an employee has concerning the process and system also plays a pivotal role in satisfaction. Lawler (1967) emphasises that the ultimate success of a performance appraisal process depends on the thrust and satisfaction of the users in the appraisal process and system. Besides, employees and managers react more favourably to fair appraisal systems, resulting in e.g. satisfaction with the appraisal process (and system) and more acceptance of performance feedback (Levy & Williams, 2004: 891).

Appraisal reactions of employees regarding the process are perhaps just as important as reliability and validity of performance appraisals, for the long term effect of such a performance appraisal process (Dipboye & Pointbriand, 1981; Levy & Williams, 2004). Therefore, organisations should attempt to maintain or increase employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process (Cawley, Keeping & Levy, 1998).

(8)

1988:63). Several studies distinguish satisfaction with the appraisal system and satisfaction with the appraisal interview (Giles & Mossholder, 1990; Greller, 1978; Harris, 1988). Yet, this study is oriented at employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process meaning both the system and the interview.

Appraisal system

According to Harris (1988), encouraging employees in elevated and better performances is the ultimate goal of a performance appraisal system. This can, in the long run, make organisations perform better. A system should be designed so that it offers advice and support to employees concerning how to reach this goal. Lazer & Wikstrom (1979: 44) state that: “a system, no matter how well it is designed, is condemned to fail if it is not supported by ones who have to use it”. This proves once again the importance of employee satisfaction with an appraisal system.

Appraisal interview

(9)

The appraisal interview is the moment when a manager reviews, face-to-face, his or her employees’ performance. During this moment feedback on performances is given. This indicates again the link between performance appraisal and performance feedback. In the vision of Kikoski & Litterer (1999) the interview is the weak spot – Achilles’ heel – of the total performance appraisal process. A reason for this can be found in the fact that managers tend to resist or avoid engaging in performance appraisal. For example, managers find it difficult and dislike giving a negative appraisal to an employee (Shore, Adams & Tashchian, 1998) or to have a face-to-face meeting with an employee (Kikoski & Litterer, 1999).

Effectiveness of an appraisal and performance feedback cohere substantially with the degree in which employees accept and are satisfied with a performance appraisal process. In the next sections an explanation of the different performance feedback determinants will be given.

2.2 Performance Feedback

(10)

organisational point of view “performance feedback serves both to keep its members' behaviour directed toward desired goals, and to stimulate and maintain high levels of effort” (Larson, 1984; 42).

Because of the possible influence performance feedback can have on employees’ performance, eventually resulting in better organisational performances, it is an important part of the appraisal process. This importance of performance feedback in the performance appraisal process is acknowledged by several studies (Bernadin and Beatty, 1984; Ilgen et al., 1979; Lawler, 1994; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995).

Giving performance feedback is not always easy; the timing and the way in which it is given are essential (Clarke-Epstein, 2001). Because of their aforementioned importance, performance appraisal systems should not be used for making judgements about employees but should provide meaningful performance feedback to employees (Wiese & Buckley, 1998). Besides, the understanding and acceptance of a performance appraisal system by employees promotes the effectiveness of performance feedback (Tziner, Joanis, Murphy, 2000). When employees are unsatisfied with the appraisal process or see it as unfair it is unlikely that employees will use performance feedback to improve their performance (Ilgen, Fisher & Taylor, 1979). A more detailed discussion of the performance feedback determinants which are examined is this study follows next.

Performance feedback determinants

(11)

performance feedback” (Jawahar, 2006: 214). The importance of research on satisfaction with performance feedback is also widely accepted (Ilgen et al., 1979; Keeping & Levy, 2000; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). As indicated before, performance feedback is part of the appraisal interview, which is part of the performance appraisal process. Because the employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process is important to an organisation, employee satisfaction with the performance feedback should be equally important. Jawahar (2006) indicates in his study that, higher employee satisfaction with the performance feedback is positively related to employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process. This leads to the next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Higher employee satisfaction with received performance feedback leads to a higher employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process.

Besides aforementioned determinant, other performance feedback determinants are examined is this study. These are the usefulness of feedback, if the performance feedback is based on an employees’ work performance and, furthermore, the frequency with which performance feedback is given. These determinants are also expected to be related to employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

(12)

the expertise of the employee (Ilgen et. al., 1979). An employee must understand the performance feedback and it must give him or her the opportunity to correct and/or develop him- or herself. Moreover, “when performance feedback is given appropriately and it is useful, it can lead to substantial improvements in future performance” (Wiese & Buckley 1998: 239). Yet, the fact if performance feedback is useful to an employee can only be judged by his or her frame of reference (Ilgen, et. al., 1979). As mentioned before, when employees receive useful performance feedback they are more satisfied with a performance process (Dobbins et. al., 1990; Dipboye & dePontbriand, 1981; Landy et. al., 1978).

Hypothesis 2: (More) useful performance feedback leads to a higher employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

(13)

performance appraisal process (Jawahar, 2006; Larson, 1984). The following hypotheses can be formulated:

Hypothesis 3: (More) performance based feedback leads to a higher employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

A performance appraisal interview, and the giving of performance feedback with it, should not only be useful and based on performances but should also be held frequently. According to Boice and Kleiner (1997) appraisal interviews should be kept with certain regularity (frequency), in their opinion twice a month. They imply that with a frequently held appraisal interview two situations are eliminated, namely: “(1) selective memory of the supervisor or the employee; and (2) surprises at an annual review” (Boice & Kleiner, 1997: 198). A well organised performance appraisal process, and system, should eliminate these situations. Higher frequency of appraisal interviews leads to clarification and revision of targets, which leads to employees being better informed and more satisfied (Boice en Kleiner, 1997). A study by Russel & Goode (1988) also acknowledges that a higher frequency of performance appraisal (feedback) is better, this for “enhancing the effectiveness of performance appraisals” (Schreader, 2007: 23). This leads to the next hypothesis:

(14)

Satisfaction with an appraisal process can, in addition to foregoing determinants, also be determined by the nature of performance appraisal feedback. Positive performance feedback is more accepted by employees than negative, this is almost without any exception (Ilgen’s et al. 1979). Moreover, “the more positive, the more accurately it is perceived and the more frequently it may be given” (Russell & Goode, 1988: 63). This in itself is logical, because people are feedback searchers, and positive feedback gives a better feeling, is more pleasant to receive and can improve an employee’s self-image (Ashford, 1986; Ilgen et. al., 1979). Negative performance feedback can make an employee more defensive during an appraisal interview, whereas positive performance feedback can put employee more at ease and make him less defensive (Stone, Gueutal, McIntosh, 1984). A positive nature of performance feedback gives an employee an increased positive attitude with respect to an appraisal system. The previous leads to the following hypothesis;

Hypothesis 5: Positive (nature of individual) performance feedback leads to higher employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

(15)

feedback are focussed on individual performance feedback (Ilgen et. al., 1979; Conlon & Barr, 1989).

A study by Johnson and Nawrocki (1967) shows that employees accept positive group performance feedback more easily and are more satisfied with it, but blame team members for negative performance feedback. According to Conlon and Barrs’ (1989) study groups react positively to frequently provided group feedback. This present study examines if nature and frequency of group performance feedback influences employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process. This leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 6: A more positive nature of group feedback leads to a higher employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

Hypothesis 7: A higher frequency of group performance feedback (appraisal) leads to a higher employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

2.3 Remaining determinants

(16)

Level of rating

It is interesting to look at the level of appraisal an employee receives from his supervisor. By way of explanation: the level of appraisal represents, within this study, the value of an appraisal on an appraisal scale. This appraisal scale will be explained in section 3.3. According to Ilgen et al. (1979) and Kluger & DeNisi (1996), the level of a performance appraisal is an important distinctive in performance feedback. “It is a potential predictor of satisfaction with the performance appraisal process and performance feedback” (Jawahar, 2006: 216). This finding is supported by a study of Dobbins, Cardy & Platz-Vieno (1990); they state that employees are more satisfied with an appraisal process when receiving a high evaluation than a low evaluation. And a study of Dipboye and dePontbriand (1981) demonstrates that the variance in appraisal satisfaction is explained for 25% by the level of the latest appraisal. The relation between level of appraisal and satisfaction with the performance process has not been examined by many studies. Within this study it is examined if the level of an appraisal leads to a higher satisfaction with the process. This leads to the next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 8: A higher level of performance appraisal leads to more employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

Rater’s experience

(17)

According to Ilgen et al. (1979) the experience of a rater is a possible variable which can influence the acceptation and satisfaction of performance feedback by an employee. “Performance feedback from a rater with less experience, shall commonly be considered as less reliable or accurate than performance feedback given by a rater with a lot of experience” (Stone, Gueutal & McIntosh, 1984: 491). Besides the finding from the preceding study, a study of Klein, Kraut & Wolfson (1971) has also demonstrated that individuals are more satisfied with the process when receiving performance feedback from an experienced rater. The preceding leads to the next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 9: The more years a rater is in function the higher the employee satisfaction with the performance feedback.

Below, the conceptual research model (figure 1) is presented; it provides a visual picture of the determinants which can influence the employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. According to the hypotheses it is expected that all variables positively influence the employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

(18)

3 RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Procedure

This research was part of a larger research project. The larger research project investigated the influences of several contextual factors on satisfaction of employees and direct supervisors with the performance appraisal process. The data for the present research were collected from a large industrial organisation in the Netherlands. Moreover, they were collected at two different departments, Innovation and Supply Chain, but on an equal organisational level. In this way a double role of supervisors was excluded. Similar to the approach of Mount (1983), two questionnaires were designed. One was tailored to the perspective of direct supervisors and the other one to the perspective of employees. The supervisors and employees of Innovation received the questionnaire by email and they could return their completed questionnaire also by email. In order to increase the response rate, a reminder was sent out after a week by the secretary and director of Innovation to all the participators that did not complete the questionnaire yet. At Supply Chain the teams who took part in the research where selected at random. The questionnaires were handed out physically to the supervisors and employees, but it was their own choice if they wanted to participate in this research.

(19)

of the items were identical on both questionnaires. As mentioned before, this study is part of a larger research and for this reason only the questions 5, 22-34, 40-51 of the employee questionnaire and question 5 of the supervisors’ questionnaire are relevant for this study. The questionnaires can be found in the appendix.

3.2 Respondents

In total, (Innovation, Supply Chain) 168 employees and 29 supervisors handed in their questionnaire. Yielding a response rate of 34% at Innovation and 20% at Supply Chain. The majority of the supervisors were male (82% and 18% female), most of the employees were also male (73% and 27% female). Furthermore, the age of the supervisors varied between 29 and 62 years (M= 42, 21 / SD= 8,41), and for the employees between 21 and 61 years (M= 41,45 / SD=8,35).

3.3 Measures

(20)

Performance feedback determinants

To answer the questions of the variables ‘based on performance’, ‘usefulness’ and ‘feedback satisfaction’, a five point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used. These variables were measured with a single item. ‘Based on performance’ was measured by: “My supervisor gives me feedback based on my work

performances”. The usefulness was measured by two items. The first item was a

validated proposition of the “Employee Engagement Survey (EES) of Philips (2007):

“My supervisor provides me with timely and useful feedback”, in addition, a validated

proposition of Herold & Greller (1977) and Nemeroff & Wexley (1979) was used:

“Because of the feedback my supervisor provides me with, I can do a better job”.

Satisfaction with feedback was measured by means of a validated proposition of Jawahar (2006): “I felt satisfied with the feedback I received during the (appraisal) interview”. The nature and frequency of the individual and group feedback were measured by a different scale. To answer the questions of frequency, a five point Likert scale based on a study of Fletcher (1978) was used. The scale had a range from 1 “Never” to 5 “Often” (practically everyday). The items which measured the frequency were: “How often do

you receive individual feedback about your work performance?” and “How often does your supervisor give group feedback about the performance of your group?” The nature

was also measured by a five point Likert scale from 1 (strongly negative) to 5 (strongly positive). An example of an item that measured the nature was: “The individual feedback

(21)

Level of performance rating

The level of performance rating employees received from their supervisor was measured by a five point scale, ranging from 1 (Not acceptable) to 5 (Excellent). Two types of data were used to measure this variable, primary data and secondary data.

Satisfaction with performance appraisal process variables

In this research employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process was measured by means of 12 items. This satisfaction consists of satisfaction with the appraisal system and satisfaction with the appraisal interview. Satisfaction with the appraisal interview was measured with five items, two of Nemeroff & Wexley (1979) and three of Greller (1978). A five point Likert scale was used to measure these items using a range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item of Nemeroff & Wexley (1979) is: “I found the performance interview to be a satisfying experience”. An example item of Greller (1978) is: “I feel good about the way the appraisal was

conducted”. This item was also asked in a negative sense: “There are many ways in which I would have liked the appraisal to be different” (Greller, 1978). To measure

satisfaction with the appraisal system seven validated items of Harris (1998) were used. Furthermore, the same Likert scale as in satisfaction with the appraisal interview was used for this measurement. The items included areas such as examples of general satisfaction with the system and the importance of a performance appraisal for an employee. An example item is: “My performance rating for this year represents a fair

and accurate picture of my job performance”. The Cronbach’s alpha for these twelve

(22)

3.4 Data analysis

Due to the fact that the Cronbach alpha for the items of employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process are sufficient, the means of these items are calculated into a new variable, which represent total satisfaction with the performance appraisal process.

Furthermore, the overall satisfaction with the performance appraisal process is designed as dependent variable in this study (see figure 1). Indicated by Mount (1984:274), ‘a variable such as overall satisfaction with the process is most likely determined from multiple sources.’ These sources are, in this study, the performance feedback determinants. These were designated as independent variables. For this reason, a multiple regression analysis is the appropriate statistical procedure for measuring the influences of these independent variables. The results of this analysis show how many percent of the employee satisfaction can be explained by these independent variables. Furthermore, a regression analysis is applied to measure the relationship between the supervisors experience, the level of rating and the employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process.

Finally, one item has been reversed coded because of the negative formulation, it concerns the item “There are many ways in which I would have liked the appraisal to be

(23)

4 RESULTS

4.1 Correlation analysis

The means, standard deviations and the results of the Pearson correlations between the determinants of this study and the employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process are presented in table 1. The results show that the correlations of employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process with the level of rating both primary- (r = ,27 / p < ,01) and secondary data (r = ,22 / p < ,05) are significant positive. Besides, table 1 also shows that usefulness (r = ,63 / p < ,01), based on work performance (r = ,65 / p < ,01), feedback satisfaction (r = ,63 / p < ,01), nature of individual feedback (r = ,47 / p < ,01) nature of group feedback (r = ,41 / p < ,01), frequency of individual feedback (r = ,29 / p < ,01) and frequency of group feedback (r = ,23 / p < ,01) are all significant positively related to employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process. Remarkable is that no significant correlation is found between rater experience and employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process.

Furthermore, it was mentioned before that when performance feedback is based more on an employee’s performance the usefulness of it is also higher. Table 1 shows that there is a significant positive relation between these two variables (r = ,62 / p < ,01). This implies that when performance feedback is more based on employees’ performances the usefulness of performance feedback is also considered as higher.

(24)

Insert Table 1 here

4.2 Multiple regression analysis

The results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in table 2. According to these results it can be concluded that the performance feedback determinants, in this study, indeed influence the employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. The performance feedback determinants together explain 55% of the variance of employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process (F= 5,14, P= <,000).

(25)

performance appraisal process. This means that the following hypotheses can not be confirmed: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9.

On the basis of the value of the Beta-coefficients can be seen that the frequency of individual (,367) and group (,300) feedback have the greatest influence on employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. Furthermore, the Beta values of the nature (individual) (,297), usefulness (,277) and based on work performances (,229) show also reasonable influences of these determinants on employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. The remainder determinants are of less influence on the employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

(26)

5 DISCUSSION

The aim of this study to understand to what extent determinants of performance feedback influence employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. Furthermore, it examines if rater experience and the level of rating have effect on the employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. The conclusion to be drawn from the results of this study is that, for this sample of respondents anyway, the determinants of this study explain the variance of employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process for fifty-five percent. In other words the determinants as a group influence the employee satisfaction, as assumed in chapter 2 and the conceptual model.

(27)

In addition to the outcomes it is also important to discuss the strengths and shortcomings of this study. Positive is that present study gives new insight in to the field of employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. Most studies focus on one or two determinants and their influence on employee satisfaction, whereas this study has considered seven performance feedback determinants and two other determinants and their influence on employee satisfaction with an performance appraisal process. This, as mentioned before, gives the study a more holistic view. Moreover the results show that these determinants explain a considerable variance in the employee satisfaction.

In this study the performance appraisal process as a whole was examined. Other studies only examined the relation of performance feedback determinants with employee satisfaction with the appraisal interview (Dipboye & de Pointbriand, 1981; Landy, Barnes & Murphy, 1978; Landy, Barnes-Farrell & Cleveland, 1980; Landy & Farr, 1980) or employee satisfaction with the appraisal system (Harris, 1988; Lazer & Wikstrom, 1979). The wider perspective used in this study is also positive; a more complete view of the employee satisfaction is given this way.

(28)

study and its exploring character it was not possible to take along all these variables. For future research it would be interesting to see if for instance span of control and spatial distance support the results of this study.

Furthermore, table 1 shows the results of the correlation analysis. In this study has been looked at the results if the independent variables correlated with the dependent variable. The relations, of the independent determinants, to one another is not considered. Though it can be interesting to see if these determinants influence each other. For instance, as London implies, “elements of performance feedback (such as frequency) were highly related within the domains of positive and negative feedback (London, 1995: 161).” This is partly the case in this study, the correlation results show only a significant relation between the nature and frequency of individual performance feedback. For future research it would be interesting to examine the relations between determinants used in this study and to see how this relations coincide with employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process.

An important theoretical implication is that the results of the correlation analysis show that all determinants, except rater experience, are significant positive related with employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. Therefore results of the studies used as starting point in present study are confirmed by the respondents in this research.

(29)

hypothesized (hypothesis 5). An explanation can be that positive feedback gives a recipient a pleasant feeling and “enhances one’s self-image (Ilgen et.al., 1979), resulting in an employee being more satisfied with a performance appraisal process. Yet, no distinction was made in the sequence of positive or negative feedback of a performance appraisal in this study, whereas this sequence is thought to be strongly affecting the acceptance and satisfaction of performance feedback and thus the performance appraisal. (Stone, Gueutal & McIntosh, 1984). Therefore, this study proves that the positive nature is strongly influencing employee satisfaction, but the influence of the sequence has not been established.

(30)

Another theoretical implication is that, in this study, the experience of a rater is not significant related to employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal process. This is striking because more experience (or tenure) should, according to the found literature, lead to a higher acceptance and satisfaction of a performance appraisal. A reason for this result can be that the recipients have the feeling that their raters were not very familiar with them or their jobs. A study of Klein et. al. (1971) found that employees are more satisfied with a performance appraisal when a rater is familiar with the employees and their jobs. A possible lack of familiarity can be a reason for the absence of a significant relation.

(31)

REFERENCES

Anderson, R., Kulhavy, R., & Andre, T. 1971, Feedback procedures in programmed instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 148-156.

Ashford, S.J., 1986, Feedback-Seeking in individual adaptation: a resource perspective,

Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465-87.

Bernadin, J.H., Beatty, R.W., 1984, Performance appraisal: Assessing human behaviour

at work, Boston: Kent.

Boice, D.F., Kleiner, B.H., 1997, Designing effective performance appraisal systems,

Work study, Vol.46, No.6, 197-201.

Carol, S.J., Schneier, C.E., 1982, Performance appraisal and review systems: The

identification, measurement and development of performance in organisations.

Glenview, IL Scott, Foresman.

Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M. Levy, P.E., 1998, Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Field Investigations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 4, 615-633

Clarke-Epstein, C., 2001, Truth in Feedback, TD, 78-80

Cook, D. M. 1968, The impact on managers of frequency of feedback, Academy of

Management Journal, 11, 263-277.

Conlon, E.J., Barr, S.H., A framework for understanding group feedback, Advances in

group processes, 6, 27-48.

DeVries, D.L., Morrison, A.M., Shullman, S.L. and Gerlach, M.L., 1981, Performance

Appraisal On The Line, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.

Dipboye, R.L., de Pointbriand, R., 1981, Correlates of Employee Reactions to

performance Appraisals and Appraisal Systems, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 2, 248-251.

Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L., Platz-Vieno, S.J., 1990, A Contingency Approach to Appraisal Satisfaction: An Initia1 Investigation of the Joint Effects of

Organisational Variables and Appraisal Characteristics, Journal of Management,

(32)

Fletcher, C. 1978. Manager/Subordinate communication and leadership style: a field study of their relationship to perceived outcomes of appraisal interviews,

Personnel Review, 7, 59-62.

Giles, W.F., & Mossholder, K.W., 1990, Employee Reactions to Contextual and Session Components of Performance Appraisal, Journal or Applied Psychology 1990. Vol.

75, No. 4,371-377

Greller, M.M., 1978, The Nature of Subordinate Participation in the Appraisal Interview,

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

Greller, M.M., Herold, D.M., 1975, Sources of feedback: A preliminary Investigation,

Organisational behaviour and human performance, 13, 244-256.

Hammond, K. R., & Summers, D. A. Cognitive control, Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 58-67.

Harris, C., 1988, A Comparison of Employee Attitudes Toward Two Performance Appraisal Systems, Public Personnel Management Vol. 17, No. 4, 443-456 Hartog den, D.N., Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., 2004, Performance management: a model and

research agenda, International Association for Applied Psychology, 53, 556-569. Herold, D.M., Greller, M.M., 1977, Feedback: The definition of a construct, Academy of

management journal, Vol.20, No.1, 142-147.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., Taylor, M.S., 1979, Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in organisations, Journal of applied Psychology, vol. 64, no. 4, 349-371.

Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Lyon, H. L., 1970, A study of the impact of

management by objectives on perceived need satisfaction, Personnel Psychology,

23, 139-151.

Jawahar, I.M., 2006, Correlates of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback,

Journal of labor research, Vol.27, No. 2, 213-236.

Johnson, W.A., Nawrocki, L.H., 1967, Effects of simulated social feedback on individual tracking performance, Journal of applied psychology, 51, 146-151.

Judge, T.A., Ferris, G.R., 1993, Social context of performance evaluation decisions,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1.80-105.

(33)

Kikoski, J.F., Litterer, J.A., 1999, Effective communication in the PA interview, Public

personnel management journal, 33-42

Klein, S.M., Kraut, A.I., Wolfson, A., 1971, Employee reactions to attitude survey feedback: a study of the impact of structure and process, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16, 497-514.

Kluger, A.N., DeNisi, A., 1996, The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory,

Psychological bulletin, 254-84

Landy, F.J., Barnes, J.L., Murphy, K.R., 1978, Correlates of Perceived Fairness and Accuracy of Performance Evaluation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 6, 751-754

Landy, F.J., Farr, J.L., 1980, Performance rating, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 87, No. 1, 72-107.

Landy, F.J., Barnes-Farrel, J., Cleveland, J.N., 1980, Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluations, Journal of applied psychology, 65, 355-356.

Larson, J.R. 1984, The performance feedback process: a preliminary model.

Organisational behaviour and human performance, 33, 41-76.

Lawler, E. E., 1967, The multi-trait multi-rater approach to measuring managerial job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 369-381.

Lawler, Edward E. 1994, Motivation in Work Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lazer, R. I. & Wikstrom, W. S., 1979, Appraising Manageria1 Performance: Current

Practices and Future Directions, The Conference Board, New York.

Levy, P.E., Williams, J.R., 2004, The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future, Journal of management, 30, 881-905.

Mount, M.K., 1983, Comparisons of managerial and employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal system, Personnel Psychology, 36, 99-110

Mount, M.K., 1984, Satisfaction with a performance appraisal system and appraisal discussion, Journal of occupational behaviour, Vol. 5, 271-279. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N., 1995, Understanding performance appraisal: Social,

organisational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

(34)

Performance Appraisal Interviewer Skills of Managers, Academy of Management

Journal Vol. 22, No. 3, 566-576.

Nemeroff, W F, & Wexley, K. N. 1979, An exploration of the relationships between performance feedback interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers and subordinates, Journal of Occupational Psychology,

52,25-34.

Russell, J.S., Goode, D.L., 1998, An analysis of managers’ reactions to their own performance appraisal feedback, Journal of applied psychology, vol.73, No.1, 63-67.

Schreader, M., Becton, J.B., Portis, R., 2007, A critical examination of performance appraisals, The journal for quality and Participation, 20-25.

Shore, T.H., Adams, J.S., Tashchian, A., 1998, Effects of self-appraisal information, appraisal purpose, and feedback target on performance appraisal ratings, Journal

of business and psychology, Vol.12, No.3, 283-297.

Stone, D.L., Gueutal, H.G., McIntosh, B., 1984, The effects of feedback sequence and expertise of the rater on perceived feedback accuracy, Personnel Psychology, 37, 487-505.

Tziner, A., Joanis, C., Murphy, K.R., 2000, A Comparison of Three Methods of Performance Appraisal With Regard to Goal Properties, Goal Perception, and Ratee Satisfaction, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, June 2000 175-190.

Vegt van der, G.S., Janssen, O., 2003, Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation, Journal of management, 29 729–751.

Vegt van der, G.S., Vliert van de, E., 2002, Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness,

Journal of managerial psychology, Vol.17, No.1, 50-67.

Walsh, K., Fisher, D., 2005, Action inquiry and performance appraisals, The Learning

Organisation Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 26-41

Wiese, D.S., Bucley, M.R., 1998, The evolution of the performance appraisal process,

(35)

(36)

Table 1: Correlations between independent and dependent variables M SD 1 1.a. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Level of rating (primary data) 3,03 ,658 1a Level of rating (secondary data) 3,13 ,622 ,40** 2. Rater experience 7,73 9,145 -,00 -,29** 3. Usefulness 3,69 ,908 ,06 ,12 ,01 4. Based on work performance 3,93 ,926 ,16 ,12 -,01 ,62** 5. Feedback satisfaction 3,79 1,026 ,17 ,11 -,02 ,69** ,66** 6. Nature individual feedback 3,73 ,561 ,35** ,33** -,08 ,31** ,23** ,35** 7. Nature group feedback 3,55 ,662 ,13 ,15 ,03 ,26** ,25** ,21* ,39** 8. Frequency individual feedback 2,52 1,030 ,06 ,02 ,11 ,36** ,14 ,19* ,26** ,16 9. Frequency group feedback 2,52 1,256 ,16 -,18 ,20* ,17* ,13 ,21** ,10 ,16 ,33** 10. Employee satisfaction PA1 process 3,89 ,722 ,28** ,22* ,07 ,63** ,65** ,63** ,47** ,41** ,29** ,23** N =160 N = 90 (For 1/1.a) 2 *p < ,05 **p < ,01

1_{PA stands for performance appraisal}

(37)

Table 2: Multiple regression analysis

Independent Variables Employee satisfaction PA process

Usefulness ,28

Base on work performance ,23

Feedback satisfaction -,07

Nature (Individual feedback) ,30*

Nature (Group feedback) ,18

Frequency (Individual feedback) -,37*

Frequency (Group feedback) ,30*

Rater experience -,09

Level of rating (primary data) ,16

Level of rating (secondary data) -,08

(38)

APPENDIX

Evaluatieonderzoek Performance Management

Beste Philips Consumer Lifestyle (CL) Drachten medewerker,

In het kader van onze afstudeeropdracht van de studie Bedrijfskunde verrichten wij binnen Philips CL Drachten een onderzoek naar het Performance

Management proces (PM). Op basis van dit onderzoek zullen aanbevelingen worden gedaan om het PM-proces binnen Philips CL Drachten waar nodig te verbeteren.

Om dit te kunnen doen vragen wij uw medewerking voor deze enquête. De enquête bestaat uit 3 onderdelen:

1. Algemeen

2. Performance Management

3. Werk- en beoordelingsgesprekken

Het invullen van de enquête zal ongeveer 10 tot 15 minuten duren.

Sommige vragen lijken op elkaar, toch vragen wij u op elke vraag een antwoord te geven.

De door u ingevulde gegevens zullen strikt vertrouwelijk worden behandeld en uitsluitend door ons worden gebruikt voor dit onderzoek.

In navolging van deze enquête zullen voor het onderzoek nog groepsgesprekken / interviews plaatsvinden. De deelnemers voor deze groepgesprekken /

interviews worden willekeurig bepaald. De mogelijkheid bestaat dat u hiervoor wordt uitgenodigd.

Mocht u vragen hebben, neemt u dan gerust contact met ons op via: Telnr: 2098

Mail: retour.enquete@gmail.com

Locatie: Kamer HB 10

Alvast bedankt voor uw medewerking en succes met het invullen van de enquête.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Ivo Volkers & Klaas Wachter

(39)

Algemeen

1. Wat is uw geslacht? □ Man

□ Vrouw

2. Wat is uw leeftijd? ... jaar 3. Onder welke CAO valt u?

□ A □ B

4. Wat is uw functie? ... 5. Hoeveel jaar bent u werkzaam in uw huidige functie? ... jaar

6. Mijn werken beoordelingsgesprek heeft plaatsgevonden vóór de salarisaanzegging □ Ja

□ Nee

7. Hoeveel formele momenten heeft u per jaar met uw leidinggevende waarin uw werkprestaties en ontwikkeling wordt beoordeeld?

…………momenten Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

Helemaal mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet mee eens /Niet mee oneens Grotendeels mee eens Helemaal mee eens

8. Ik vind het aantal formele momenten waarop beoordeling plaatsvindt voldoende

9. Ik vind het belangrijk dat er ieder jaar een beoordelingsgesprek plaatsvindt 10. Ik ben bekend met de doelen van

Performance Management Nooit Zelden (1 x per maand) Soms (1x per week) Regelmatig (meer dan 1 x per week) Vaak (vrijwel dagelijks)

11. Hoe vaak bespreekt u met uw leidinggevende uw werkzaamheden (buiten het (formele) werken beoordelingsgesprek om)?

Zeer negatief

Negatief Neutraal Positief Zeer positief

(40)

Nooit Zelden (1 x per maand) Soms (1x per week) Regelmatig (meer dan 1 x per week) Vaak (vrijwel dagelijks)

13. Hoe vaak heeft u informeel niet-werkgerelateerd contact met uw leidinggevende?

Zeer negatief

14. Hoe positief/negatief Is dit contact volgens u? Helemaal mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet mee eens /Niet mee oneens Grotendeels mee eens Helemaal mee eens

15. Mijn leidinggevende heeft goede gelegenheden om mijn werkprestaties te observeren

16. Mijn leidinggevende heeft normaal gesproken vaak de gelegenheid om mijn werkprestaties goed te observeren

Werk- en beoordelingsgesprekken Helemaal mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet mee eens /Niet mee oneens Grotendeels mee eens Helemaal mee eens

17. Voorafgaand aan het

beoordelingsgesprek wist ik welke voorbereiding van mij verwacht werd 18. Voorafgaand aan het

beoordelingsgesprek heb ik de afspraken uit mijn vorige

beoordelingsgesprek bestudeerd 19. Voorafgaand aan het

beoordelingsgesprek heb ik nagedacht over mijn ontwikkeling

20. Het beoordelingsgesprek verliep ontspannen

(41)

22. De feedback die ik van mijn leidinggevende krijg is op mijn werkprestaties gebaseerd

23. Mijn leidinggevende voorziet me van (tijdige) en bruikbare feedback 24. Door de feedback die ik van mijn

leidinggevende krijg, kan ik mijn werk beter doen

25. Ik ben tevreden over de feedback, die ik tijdens het werken

beoordelingsgesprek, van mijn leidinggevende heb gekregen

26. Hoe vaak krijgt u van uw

leidinggevende individuele feedback over uw individuele werkprestaties?

Zeer negatief

27. De individuele feedback die ik van mijn leidinggevende krijg is meestal

28. Hoe vaak krijgt u van uw

leidinggevende groepsfeedback over uw groepsprestaties?

Zeer negatief

29. De groepsfeedback die ik van mijn leidinggevende krijg is meestal

30. Ik heb informatie en advies van mijn collega's nodig om mijn baan goed uit te voeren

31. Ik heb een éénpersoonsbaan; het is niet noodzakelijk voor mij om met anderen te coördineren of samen te werken

32. Ik moet met mijn collega's

(42)

33. Mijn collega's hebben informatie en advies van mij nodig om hun banen goed uit te kunnen voeren

34. Ik moet regelmatig met collega's over werkgerelateerde zaken communiceren

35. Het is voor mij duidelijk hoe mijn beloning wordt vastgesteld 36. Ik vind dat mijn beloning van het

afgelopen jaar goed aansluit bij de beoordeling die ik heb gekregen 37. Ik ben tevreden met de beloning die ik

heb gekregen

38. Mijn leidinggevende kan de koppeling tussen de beoordeling en beloning goed uitleggen

39. Het werken beoordelingsgesprek duurde… □ < 0,5 uur □ 0,5 – 1 uur □ 1 – 1,5 uur □ > 1,5 uur Helemaal mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet mee eens /Niet mee oneens Grotendeels mee eens Helemaal mee eens

40. Ik voel mij op mijn gemak tijdens het werken beoordelingsgesprek 41. Het werken beoordelingsgesprek

helpt mij om mijn werk beter te doen 42. Ik vind het werken

beoordelingsgesprek een prettige ervaring

43. Ik ben tevreden over de wijze waarop het werken beoordelingsgesprek met mij gevoerd is

44. Ik had graag gezien dat het beoordelingsgesprek anders was verlopen.

45. Mijn afgelopen beoordeling is een eerlijke en nauwkeurige afspiegeling van mijn prestaties

46. Ik ben tevreden met de beoordelingen die ik heb gekregen

47. Mijn leidinggevende stelt mij in staat om samen met hem/haar mijn te behalen doelen vast te stellen 48. De belangrijkste onderdelen van mijn

(43)

beoordeling

49. De doelen die ik moet behalen zijn duidelijk

50. Ik weet welke criteria gebruikt worden om mijn prestaties te meten

51. Mijn leidinggevende en ik verstaan hetzelfde onder goede werkprestaties in mijn baan

52. De eindbeoordeling die ik heb gekregen was voor (bij de CAO die voor u van toepassing is) CAO-A □ Niet acceptabel □ Voldoende □ Goed □ Zeer goed □ Uitmuntend CAO-B □ Excels □ Exceeds □ Fully meets □ Partially meets □ Requires action

53. Geef maximaal 3 aanbevelingen of suggesties voor het verbeteren en/of aanpassen van het beoordelingssysteem, (de PPM-tool CAO-B) / Beoordelingsformulier CAO-A))