The influence of contextual factors
27 August 2009
Klaas Wachter
Student number: 1656201
University of Groningen
Msc, Faculty of Management and Organization,
Human Resource Management
Sleutelbloem 56
8935 RR Leeuwarden
Tel: 06-11308385
E-mail: ka_wachter@hotmail.com
Supervisors University:
Prof. dr. G.S. van der Vegt
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ...3
1. INTRODUCTION ...4
2. THEORY ...7
2.1 APPRAISAL EFFECTIVENESS...7
2.2 THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL...9
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to provide insight in the effects of the performance appraisal context on appraisal effectiveness and on dispersion in single performance appraisal ratings. Therefore, the central question to this study is: To what extent does the performance appraisal context influences the appraisal effectiveness and dispersion in single performance appraisal ratings? By drawing from previous studies, this study focuses on the effects of four contextual factors (ease of observation, span of control, spatial distance and informal contact). Furthermore, this study also considers the level of the overall performance score of the performance appraisal as an influencing factor on appraisal effectiveness. Data for this study were collected at a large multinational corporation in The Netherlands.
The main conclusions of this study are that together the contextual factors and the level of the overall performance score of the performance appraisal influence appraisal effectiveness. Furthermore, together the contextual factors in this study have no significant influence on dispersion in performance appraisals. Although the mere part of factors in this study do not show a significant relation with appraisal effectiveness and dispersion in performance appraisals, it is however relevant for organizations to keep the possible influence of the context in mind. Understanding the influence of organizational context can contribute to effective management of a performance appraisal process.
Keywords:
1. INTRODUCTION
Performance appraisal (PA) is one of the most studied topics in work psychology (Fletcher, 2002). This great deal of attention regarding PA can be explained by the importance of purposes and benefits of PA in organizations, such as promotions, compensations, employee development and increases of effort, motivation and performance of employees (Yun, Donahue, Dudley & McFarland, 2005; Pettijohn, Parker, Pettijohn & Kent, 2001). Because of these aforementioned purposes and benefits, the performance appraisal (PA) process is considered one of the most important human resource systems (Judge & Ferris, 1993).
Within the area of PA, an issue of great concern of practitioners and scientists involves the effectiveness of the PA process (Cawley, Keeping & Levy, 1998). Cawley et al. (1998:615) refer to this so-called appraisal effectiveness as “how well the appraisal system is operating as a tool for the assessment of work performance”. According to Cardy and Dobbins (1994) appraisal effectiveness consists of rater errors, rating accuracy and qualitative aspects of the appraisal.
Research on the effectiveness of the PA process has mainly been dominated by the first two aspects. In contrast, assessment of qualitative criteria (i.e. employee reactions) has received little attention (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994). Due to this lack of attention, Murphy and Cleveland (1995:310) refer to these criteria as “neglected criteria”.
A second area where authors have called upon attention concerns the context in which a PA process takes place (Giles & Mossholder, 1990). Several authors stressed the importance to examine the context in which a PA process takes place due to the fact that the organizational context can be a source of influence on the effectiveness of the PA process as well as on the performance appraisals (PA’s) (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Wright, 2004; Giles & Mossholder, 1990). Both these possibilities, that the organizational context can influence PA process and the PA’s, are relevant to consider. However, influences of the organizational context on both the PA process and the PA’s as the outcomes of the process have been largely ignored by researchers (Ilgen & Feldman, 1983).
Research on PA has mainly focussed on psychological aspects which influence PA’s (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Furthermore, according to Landy and Farr (1980) PA’s have primarily been evaluated in terms of resistance to errors. However, these so-called rater error criteria by which PA’s are evaluated are subject to implied assumptions (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). These assumptions will be discussed in the following chapter. A criterion which has no implied assumptions and therefore appears to be more suitable to examine PA’s is dispersion in a PA’s. According to Srinivas and Motowidlo (1987) dispersion in PA’s as a criterion refers to the extend a PA is differentiated by a supervisor.
Based on the aforementioned, the following question arises: “To what extent does the organizational context influences the effectiveness of the PA process and dispersion in PA’s?” By drawing from previous studies, the organizational context in this study is shaped by the following four contextual factors: ease of observation, span of control, spatial distance and informal contact.
shown that the overall performance score of the PA appears to be a predictor of the effectiveness of the PA process (Dobbins, Cardy & Platz-Vieno,1990).
2. THEORY
2.1 Appraisal effectiveness
A performance appraisal process involves the measurement and review of employee performance, with the ultimate aim to positively affect organizational success (Den Hartog, Boselie & Paauwe, 2004).
According to Murphy and Cleveland (1995), the effectiveness of a PA process depends on the process itself as well as on the outcome of the process. The effectiveness of the PA process can be evaluated by three classes of criteria; rater errors, rating accuracy and employee reaction criteria (Cawley et al., 1998).
Several studies have emphasized the importance of employee reaction criteria to assess the effectiveness of an appraisal process, by arguing that someone can develop the most accurate and technically sophisticated appraisal system, but if such a system is not supported and accepted by employees, the effectiveness will be limited (Carroll & Schneier, 1982; Lawler, 1967).
Furthermore, Bernardin and Beatty (1984) suggested that reaction criteria refer to the overall viability of a PA process whereas psychometric indices are limited in scope to assess the appraisal effectiveness. In addition, Bernardin and Beatty (1984) suggested that research should be directed to satisfaction as a reaction criterion due to its critical role in determining appraisal effectiveness.
Wexley and Klimoski (1984) have shown that satisfaction with the PA process can affect variables such as productivity, motivation and commitment.
Studies which examined appraisal effectiveness on the basis of employee satisfaction, distinguish two types of satisfaction: (1) employee satisfaction with the appraisal system and (2) employee satisfaction with the appraisal interview (Mount, 1984; Giles & Mossholder, 1990). In this study, we will include both types of satisfaction.
Satisfaction with the appraisal system
An appraisal system is “a system whereby an organization assigns some score to indicate the level of performance of a target person or a group” (DeNisi, 2000:121). According to Harris (1988:443) the ultimate goal of an appraisal system is “to encourage better employee performance”. In addition Harris (1988) argues that a system should be designed in a sense that it provides guidance to achieve goals and better performance.
Studies of Latham, Cummings and Mitchell (1981) and Carroll and Schneier (1982) have shown that employee attitudes towards the appraisal system will predict the extent to which employees are willing to meet the goals and better performance. Furthermore, according to Tziner, Joanis and Murphy (2000), employee satisfaction with the appraisal system is a crucial attitude by arguing that appraisal effectiveness substantially depends on the extent to which the performance appraisal system is accepted.
Satisfaction with the appraisal interview
Studies on employee satisfaction with the appraisal interview have shown that this type of satisfaction is related to satisfaction with the appraisal system (Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Mount, 1984).
2.2 The performance appraisal
As mentioned previously, the outcome of the PA process also plays a critical role when examining appraisal effectiveness. The key outcome of a PA process are the performance appraisals (PA’s) of employees, due to the fact that these serve as the basis for decisions such as promotions and pay raise (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
A PA consists of standards or indicators to determine the performance of employees. These standards or indicators can be defined in terms of behaviour or specific results (e.g. sales volume, the quantity of produced items) and define what constitutes good or poor performance (Scullen, Mount & Goff, 2000). Furthermore, organizations can differ in the number of standards which are used to asses performance. Some organizations use one single performance standard whereas other organizations make use of multiple standards or indicators, which in turn results in an overall performance score (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Performance appraisal literature has devoted considerable attention to the evaluation of rating data of PA’s (Bernardin & Beatty, 1984). Studies on this aspect are concerned with the question to what extent a PA is free of errors and as a consequence can be considered accurate (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Van Scotter, Moustafa, Burnett & Micheal, 2006).
By examining the definition of halo it becomes apparent that it is assumed that when the rating data of a PA are not dispersed, the PA is considered to be subject to error. Furthermore, the presence of error makes the PA inaccurate (Van Scotter et al., 2006). By taking this into account, it can be concluded that in case that rating data of a PA are dispersed the PA is free of error and therefore can be considered accurate. Put differently, if absence of dispersion in a PA is assumed to be error, the presence of dispersion should be assumed no error and thus results into an accurate PA. From this point of view it is relevant to consider dispersion in a PA as a criterion to examine PA’s.
Furthermore, studies based on halo assume that the presence of error is due to a mistake or an inability of the rater (Funder, 1987). Therefore halo is referred to as a rater error criterion (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). As a reaction to this assumption, Murphy and Cleveland (1995) note that errors in a PA’s are not necessarily the consequence of inabilities of a rater. They argue that the organizational context can also be a source of influence on accuracy of PA’s as well as on the PA process.
This second assumption makes dispersion in a PA as a criterion also relevant to consider. Dispersion as a criterion solely refers to the extent to which a PA is differentiated (Srinivas & Motowidlo, 1987). Therefore, dispersion as a criterion does not automatically assume any inabilities or mistakes on behalf of the rater.
Given that the presence of dispersion can be considered a PA which is free of errors and as a consequence can be considered accurate, and the fact that dispersion as a criterion has no implicit assumption regarding inabilities of the rater, this study will use dispersion as a criterion to examine PA’s. Furthermore, it is expected that:
H1: Dispersion in performance appraisals is positively related to appraisal
2.3 Organizational context
As mentioned previously, it is argued that the organizational context can be a source of influence on the PA process and PA’s (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Ferris, Judge, Rowland & Fitzgibbons, 1994).
The importance to consider the context is pointed out by Levy and Williams (2004) who argue that the context in which the PA process takes place, plays a major role on how participants react to that process. In addition, they argue that the organizational context is integral to develop effective PA’s.
Organizational context is defined in different ways, for example Ferris and Judge (1993) refer to social variables and situational influences. Mohrman and Lawler (1981) refer to the context as job characteristics, the nature of interpersonal relationships, and the structure, climate and culture of the organization. A more specified description of the organizational context is given by Murphy and Cleveland (1995). They classify organizational context into proximal and distal variables. Proximal variables refer to factors which impinge directly on the rater (e.g. the purpose of the rating, the amount of time available and organizational policies). Distal variables refer to factors which indirectly affect the rater (e.g. organizational culture, climate).
Ease of observation
In order for a supervisor to evaluate the performance of an employee it is necessary to capture information of an employee’s job performance. One way of capturing information is by direct observations of a supervisor (Raymark, Balzer & Delatorre, 1999; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). However, there are several barriers for a supervisor to observe employee’s performance such as organizational arrangements, time constraints or conflicting demands. These barriers can place limits on the extent to which performance can be observed (Brinkerhoff & Kanter, 1980). An example of an organizational arrangement is a police sergeant who has little opportunity to observe the performance of patrol officers (Raymark et al., 1999).
Research of Mitchell (1983) introduced the so-called ease of observation, which refers to the number of opportunities to observe a task or performance. Results of a study of Murphy, Garcia, Kerkar, Martin and Balzer (1982) has shown that a supervisor’s accuracy of observation is related to accuracy in the PA. In addition, a study of Heneman and Wexley (1983) found that accuracy in the PA increases as a supervisor’s opportunity to observe an employee increases.
Besides these effects of the ease of observation, research of Judge and Ferris (1993) found that the ease of observation positively affected the overall performance score of PA’s. This finding is important because of the positive direction of the ease of observation. In accordance with these findings, it is expected that:
H2: Ease of observation will positively affect appraisal effectiveness.
Span of control
Span of control refers to the number of employees which are directly overseen by a supervisor (Jones, 2006). According to Murphy and Cleveland (1995), it is assumed that a large span of control leads to low accuracy in a PA. They argue that this is caused by (1) the limited amount of time available to observe employees and (2) the more time a supervisor has to spend on doing the performance evaluation.
Judge and Ferris (1993) investigated the effects of span of control on the overall performance score of PA’s. They expected a negative effect of a span of control due to a decrease of observation of a supervisor. However, no relation was found between the span of control and the overall performance score of PA’s.
Another way to investigate the effects of span of control can be found by research of Latane, Williams and Harkins (1979). They found that an increase of group size resulted in lower productivity. These results are important due to the fact that a decrease of productivity can actually justify low level PA’s.
By following this negative direction of span of control the following hypotheses are formulated:
H4: A large span of control will negatively affect appraisal effectiveness.
H5: A large span of control will lead to less dispersion in performance appraisals.
Spatial distance between supervisor and employee
organizations and their departments can vary in the proximity of supervisors and subordinates (Kaufman, 1960).
Research on spatial distance has shown that employee satisfaction with the appraisal system is positively related to a small spatial distance (Dobbins et al., 1990). Furthermore, a study of Wherry and Bartlett (1982) shows that PA’s are most accurate when a supervisor and subordinates work in close proximity. These findings are consistent with findings regarding the ease of observation. An explanation for this consistency is most likely the underlying assumption, that a close proximity results in more opportunities to observe (Judge & Ferris, 1993).
However, it is relevant to make a distinction between ease of observation and spatial distance. First of all because a physically small distance between a supervisor and employees does not necessarily result into more ease of observation. Second, research has mainly addressed the ease of observation as a derived measure from the proximity between a supervisor and employees (Mitchell, 1983; Wexley & Klimoski, 1984). Although this makes sense, the consequence is that separate effects of the ease to observe and spatial distance cannot be made visible. This view is in line with the vision of Ferris et al. (1994) who refer to spatial distance as a construct which has been virtually ignored in research. The previous leads to the following hypotheses:
H6: A close spatial distance will positively affect appraisal effectiveness.
Informal contact between supervisor and employee
Informal contact between employees and their supervisor is the fourth contextual factor to this study. A study of Fletcher (1987) addressed informal contact between a supervisor and employees. Informal contact refers to the work relation and as a result to the day-to-day contact between a supervisor and employees. Results showed that the frequency of discussing work outside the appraisal interview was positively related to the acceptance of the appraisal interview, job performance and job satisfaction.
In addition to the frequency of informal contact, research has also focused on the relevancy of contact between a supervisor and employees. According to Wherry and Bartlett (1982) the accuracy of the PA depends on the relevancy of information a supervisor has about the employee. Relevancy of information refers to the type of contact between a supervisor and an employee (Landy & Guion, 1970).
Research of Landy and Guion (1970) and Freeberg (1969) found that interactions between a supervisor and employees result into accurate PA’s when the interaction concerns work related aspects. Furthermore, Werimont and Campbell (1968) noted that non-work-related contact also contributes to accuracy of the PA. They argued that non-work-non-work-related contacts presents a supervisor behavioural signs which are associated with successful or unsuccessful performance. The previous leads to the following hypotheses:
H8: Frequency of informal work-related contact will positively affect appraisal effectiveness.
H9: Frequency of informal work-related contact will lead to more dispersion in performance
H10: Frequency of informal non work-related contact will positively affect appraisal
effectiveness.
H11: Frequency of informal non work-related contact will lead to more dispersion in
performance appraisals.
Besides the frequency and the relevancy of informal contact between a supervisor and employees, this study also considers the nature of the different types of contact. First, because contact can be perceived in different ways. Second, research has made few attempts on examining the effects of the nature of contact (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
A study of Cardy and Dobbins (1986) has shown that when a supervisor likes an employee the PA becomes less accurate because an employee is being evaluated better than his/her true performance. Furthermore, liking also positively affects the overall performance score of the PA (Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Based on these findings, it can be assumed that positive contacts will positively disturb and influence PA’s. Therefore it is expected that:
H12: Positive informal work-related contact will positively affect appraisal effectiveness.
H13: Positive informal work-related contact will lead to less dispersion in performance
appraisals.
H14: Positive informal non work-related contact will positively affect appraisal effectiveness.
H15: Positive informal non work-related contact will lead to less dispersion in performance
Level of the overall performance score of the performance appraisal
Next to the contextual factors, this study also considers the level of the overall performance score of PA’s as an influencing factor on appraisal effectiveness. According to Jawahar (2006) the level of the PA is a potential predictor of employee satisfaction with the appraisal process.
Past research supports this assumption due to the fact that a study of Dobbins, Cardy and Platz-Vieno (1990) has shown that employees are more satisfied with the appraisal system when they a received high overall performance score. Furthermore, a study of Dipboye and de Pontbriand (1981) found that the level of the overall performance score of the latest PA accounted for 25% of the variance in appraisal satisfaction. In line with these findings, it is expected that:
H16: A high overall performance score level of performance appraisal positively affects
appraisal effectiveness.
Below the research model (figure 1) is presented. This model is a visualisation of the factors that are expected to be of influence on appraisal effectiveness and dispersion in PA’s. According to the hypotheses it is expected that: ease of observation, spatial distance, the frequency, relevancy and nature of informal contact, and the level of overall performance score of the PA positively influence appraisal effectiveness. A supervisor’s span of control is expected to negatively influence appraisal effectiveness.
Regarding dispersion in PA’s it is expected that: ease of observation, spatial distance, and frequency and relevancy of informal contact will result in more dispersion in PA’s Furthermore, span of control and the nature of informal contact will result in less dispersion.
3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Procedure
This study was part of a larger research at a multinational corporation located in The Netherlands. The larger research assessed the influence of several contextual factors on satisfaction with the PA process of employees and their direct supervisors. Research data for this study were collected from employees and their direct supervisors of the Supply Chain (SC) department of this multinational corporation. Participants were chosen randomly by selecting teams which consisted of a supervisor and employees. Excluded from this research were temporary workers. The sample of this study covers 20% of the total number of employees and supervisors of the SC department. Two versions of the questionnaire were designed. One tailored to the perspective of supervisors and one tailored to the perspective of employees. This approach is similar to the procedure of Mount (1983). The questionnaires for supervisors and employees of the Supply Chain department were handed out physically to each team. After completing the questionnaire respondents handed in the questionnaire directly to the researchers. All subjects were able to choose whether or not they would participate in this research.
3.2 Respondents
In total 116 employees and 15 supervisors of the SC returned the questionnaire. This leads to a response rate of 99%. Of all supervisor respondents, 80% were male and 20 % female. Respondents of the SC employee questionnaire accounted for 64% male and 36% female. The age of supervisors of the SC varied from 34 to 62 years, with an average of 44 years and a standard deviation of 9.2. The age of SC employee respondents varied from 21 to 57 years, with an average of 42 years and a standard deviation of 7.22.
3.3 Measures
The questionnaire items used in this study were formulated as open questions and as propositions. Furthermore, all questions were asked in Dutch language.
Ease of observation.
Two items adopted from Judge and Ferris (1993) measured the ease of observation: “How much do you think your supervisor regularly has the opportunity to observe your job
performance and thus knows how you are doing?” and “Sometimes a supervisor’s job is such
that he/she does not have a good opportunity to observe the work performance of his/her
employees” . One of the two items was reverse coded so a high score resulted in more ease of
Span of Control.
The span of control was measured as a quantitative open question. Supervisors were asked to indicate the number of employees he/she appraises without taking temporary workers into account. This way temporary workers were excluded from this study.
Spatial distance.
The spatial distance between supervisors and their employees was measured by using the Spatial Distance Scale of Kerr and Jermier (1978). This scale measures the extent to which employees can be directly observed by their supervisor. All 3 items of the Spatial Distance Scale were used: “The nature of my job is such that my immediate superior is seldom around me when I'm working”, “On my job my most important tasks take place away
from where my immediate superior is located” and “My immediate superior and I are
seldom in actual contact or direct sight of one another”. Furthermore, all items were revised
to a supervisors perspective. The items were rated on a five point Likert-scale. All items were recoded where “1”meant totally agree and “5” meant totally disagree, so a high score refers to a close spatial distance. The Cronbach alpha of the three items measuring spatial distance is .63. Although this Cronbach alpha value does not meet the standard of .70 (Pallant, 2005), this value was accepted based on the minimal acceptance level of .60 (Robinson, Shaver & Wrightsman, 1991).
Informal contact.
discuss work with your supervisor” and “How often do you discuss non-work aspects with
your supervisor”. Both items were based on one item of Fletcher (1978) “How often do you
and your Appraising Officer discuss work together apart from in the Job Appraisal Review
itself?” and were measured on a five point Likert scale where “1”meant never and “5” meant
on a daily basis.
Furthermore, two items were used to measure the nature of informal work and non-work contact. Both item were formulated as: “According to you, how positive or negative is this contact?” and were also measured on a five point Likert-scale was used ranging from “1”
very negative and “5” very positive.
Level of the overall performance score of the performance appraisal
The level of the overall performance score of the PA’s was measured in two ways. First, employees were asked to indicate their overall performance appraisal score their supervisor gave them. Second, secondary data of HR archives was used to determine the overall appraisal score of the latest performance appraisals. Both primary and secondary data were measured on a five point scale ranging from “Not acceptable” to “Excellent”. However, after examining both types of data it became apparent that the primary data deviated from the secondary data. Furthermore, analysis of both types of data showed that the primary data did not result into new insights or significant effects. Therefore the primary data was discarded.
Measurement of dependant variables
Appraisal effectiveness
were adopted from Greller (1978) “I feel good about the way the appraisal was conducted” and “There are many ways in which I would have liked the appraisal to be different”. The second item was recoded due to the negative formulation. The other three items were drawn from Nemeroff and Wexley (1979) e.g., “I feel at ease in the feedback interview”. The remaining seven items concerned employee satisfaction with the appraisal system. These items were all adopted from Harris (1988) and addressed several issues such as fairness and knowledge of the system (e.g., “The most important parts of my job are emphasized in my performance appraisal”). All twelve items are measured on a Likert-type format where
“1”meant totally disagree and “5” meant totally agree. The Cronbach alpha of the twelve items is .93 which means that the internal consistency of all twelve items is sufficient.
Dispersion in performance appraisals
In order to determine dispersion in PA’s, secondary data of HR archives were used. The latest performance appraisals of SC employees, which consists of 26 performance standards, were used to determine the amount dispersion in PA’s. All 26 performance standards are rated on a five point scale ranging from “not acceptable” to “excellent”. To measure the amount of dispersion, the standard deviation was computed across the 26 performance standards.
3.4 Data analysis
4. RESULTS
4.1 Correlation analysis
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviation and results of the Pearson correlation between the contextual factors, the level of the overall performance score of the PA and appraisal effectiveness. Furthermore, table 1 also presents the results of the Pearson correlations between the contextual factors and dispersion in PA’s.
The results show a significant positive relation between the ease of observation and appraisal effectiveness (r = .638, p < .01). Furthermore, the frequency of informal work contact between employees and their supervisor (r = .260, p < .01), the nature of informal work contact between employees and their supervisor (r = .275, p < .05), the nature of informal non-work contact between employees and their supervisor (r = .443, p < .01), and the level of the overall performance score of the PA (r = .224, p < .05) are all significant positively related to appraisal effectiveness.
Remarkable is that the correlations of the contextual factors with dispersion in PA’s show only one significant positive correlation. This concern the nature of informal non-work related contact (r = .264, p < .05)
Finally, the results of the correlation do not show a significant relation between dispersion in PA’s and appraisal effectiveness (r = .212, p = .054). The aim of testing this relation was to determine if differentiated PA’s are related with appraisal effectiveness. However, when testing this relation one-tailed this correlation is significant at the level of 0.05. Therefore, hypothesis 1 can be accepted.
4.2 Regression analyses
Contextual factors and appraisal effectiveness
The results of the multiple regression analysis of the contextual factors and the level of the overall performance score of PA’s with appraisal effectiveness are presented in table 2. Based on the results it can be concluded that the contextual factors and the level of overall performance score of PA’s influence appraisal effectiveness. Together the contextual factors assessed in this research explain 54% of the variance of appraisal effectiveness (F = 6.844, p = .000).
The results show a significant positive relation between the ease of observation and appraisal effectiveness (β = .63, p = .000). This result is consistent with hypothesis 2, which therefore can be accepted. Furthermore, the results show a negative relation between the frequency of informal non-work related contact between employees and their supervisor and appraisal effectiveness (β = -.26, p = .04). This is not in accordance with hypothesis 10, which therefore can not be accepted.
Furthermore, no other significant relations were found regarding appraisal effectiveness. Therefore, the following hypotheses can not be confirmed: 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 16.
Contextual factors and dispersion in performance appraisal
p = .015). Therefore, hypothesis 15 is accepted. In addition, no other significant relations were found regarding dispersion in PA’s. The following hypotheses were not confirmed: 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13.
Insert table 2 here
4.3 Additional analyses
In addition to the previous analyses, research data of this study were also used to examine the moderating effects of the nature of informal work and non-work contact on the relations between the frequency of informal work and non-work contact and the dependent variables. The results of these moderator analyses showed no significant effects. However, when the level of the overall performance score of the PA was used as a dependent variable the moderator analyses showed two significant results. These results are placed in table 3.
Insert table 3 here
In order to examine the direction of the moderating effects of the nature of informal work and non-work contact, new regression analyses were applied which used different conditions of the nature of informal work and non-work contact (M+1 SD; M-1SD).
performance score of the PA (b = .638, t = 2.984, p = .004). In contrast, when the nature of informal work contact is negative the relation between frequency of informal work contact and the level of performance appraisal was not significant (b = .045, t = .218, p = .828).
5. DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent contextual factors influence appraisal effectiveness and dispersion in PA’s. Furthermore, the level of the overall performance score of PA’s was also assessed as an influencing factor on appraisal effectiveness. Based on the results, the first conclusion of this study is that the organizational context influences appraisal effectiveness. The contextual determinants and the level of the overall performance score of PA’s as a determinant explain 54% of the variance in appraisal effectiveness. The second conclusion to be drawn is that the organizational context as shaped in this study has no relevant influence on dispersion in PA’s. The contextual factors explain only 17% of the variance of dispersion in PA’s. Furthermore, this result is not significant.
In addition to the main conclusions, the results of this study show that the mere part of the predictions were not confirmed. Regarding appraisal effectiveness only hypothesis 2 was consistent with this study’s predictions. The results of this study show no significant effect of the spatial distance between a supervisor and employees on the effectiveness of the appraisal process. This result is contradictory to findings of Dobbins et al. (1990). They found a significant positive effect of a close spatial distance on employee’s satisfaction with the appraisal system. In addition, supervisor’s span of control did not influence the effectiveness of the appraisal process. This result is remarkable due to the fact that a supervisor’s span of control is assumed to affect the ease of observation of a supervisor (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
Regarding dispersion in PA’s the results also show some relevant findings. First, positive contact between employees and their supervisor on non-work aspects is significant positive related to dispersion. It was predicted to be negatively related due to fact that a positive nature of non-work related contact would have a disturbing character on PA’s. Therefore, this result means that positive contact on non-work aspects makes performance appraisals more accurate instead of less. An explanation consistent with this finding is that non-work related contact provides supervisor behavioural signs which are associated with successful or unsuccessful performance and are reflected by a supervisor in the PA (Werimont & Campbell, 1968). Another possible explanation for this finding is that positive informal non-work contact can create trust between employees and their supervisor, which is reflected into accurate appraisals (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
Furthermore, given the explained variance of 17% it can be assumed that sources of influences on PA’s are numerous. This assumption is in line with the vision of Murphy and Cleveland (1995) who argue that performance appraisals are subject to multiple, competing and conflicting organizational forces.
In addition to the aforementioned, results of this study have shown that dispersed performance appraisals are positively related to employees’ opinion regarding the appraisal process. However, this result should be taken with some caution because of the strength of the correlation.
effectiveness and dispersion in PA’s, this study has taken a more holistic approach on the performance appraisal process.
As with most studies, this research has some limitations. First, because of the scope of this study a selection has been made of factors which shaped the organizational context. Therefore, this study does not provide an overview of all contextual factors which can be of influence on the appraisal process and outcomes. For instance, the purpose of the performance appraisal and feedback are also acknowledged as important contextual factors which can affect the PA process and the outcome of the process. (Greguras, Robie, Schleicher & Goff III, 2003; Jawahar, 2006).
A second limitation of this study is that the influence of the context was examined by data obtained from a single event. This places limits on possible systematic effects of the contextual factors. Dierdorff and Surface (2007) point out that consistent assessment of the context on multiple events make systematic effects of the context apparent. Based on the aforementioned, future studies can make relevant contributions by examining additional factors and systematic effects of the organizational context.
Furthermore, a second theoretical implication of this study is that the results of the correlation analysis show a significant negative relation between a supervisor’s ease of observation and the spatial distance between employees and supervisors. This result is remarkable because it implies that when there is a close spatial distance, the perceptions of employees regarding a supervisor’s ease to observe are considered lower. Therefore this result proves the importance as noted by Ferris et al. (1994) to separately examine spatial distance as a construct.
A third theoretical implication of this study is that the context shaped in this study has had no significant effect on dispersion in PA’s. A possible explanation for the absence of effects is that this study has not considered the influence of cognitive processes of supervisors when making the performance appraisals. As Judge and Ferris (1993:82) point out “if social and situational elements are salient to the rater, they are likely to influence the rater’s cognitions of performance information”. Furthermore, several studies have shown that cognitive processes of the supervisor affect the accuracy of the PA (Huber, Neale & Northcraft, 1987; Mount & Thompson; 1987). Based on the aforementioned, it is reasonable to assume that the cognitive processes of supervisors have caused the absence of effects. Because the cognitive process of rating consists of attention, encoding, storage, retrieval, integration and rating (DeNisi & Williams, 1988), future research can make an interesting contribution by examining the effects of the context on each stage of this cognitive process instead of a focus on the PA as the outcome of the cognitive process.
Lefkowitz (2000) who argues that the quality of the relation between employees and their supervisor is reflected positively in the PA.
In addition to the theoretical implications, the main practical implication of this study is that organizations should take the influence of the organizational context into account. Given that a supervisor’s ease of observation has the highest share in the variance of the effectiveness of the appraisal process, organizations should try to ensure that supervisors have sufficient moments to observe employee performance.
Furthermore, although most of the contextual factors did not results into significant effects, it is however relevant for organizations to take the organizational context into account. For example, if span of control or spatial distance between employees and their supervisor affects the effectiveness of a performance appraisal process, organizations will be able to react to these effects by changing the organizational context in which the PA process is embedded. From this point of view the organizational context can be used by organizations to manage a performance appraisal process in an effective manner.
REFERENCES
Balzer, W.K., & Sulsky, L.M. 1990. Performance appraisal effectiveness and productivity. In K. Murphy & F. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. 1984. Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston: Kent Wadsworth.
Brinkerhoff, D.W. & Kanter, R.M. 1980. Appraising the performance of performance appraisal. Sloan management review, 21:3, 3-16
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. 1986. Affect and Appraisal Accuracy: Liking as an Integral Dimension in Evaluating Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4) 672-678. Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. 1994. Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives.
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.
Carroll, S. J., & Schneier, C. E. 1982. Performance appraisal and review systems: The
identification, measurement and development of performance in organizations.
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, 83(4): 615–633.
DeNisi, A.S. 2000. Performance appraisal and performance management: A multilevel
analysis. In K.J. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 121–156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeNisi, A.S. & Williams, K.J. 1988. Cognitive approaches to performance appraisal. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 6: 109-155. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dierdorff, E.C. & Surface, E.A. 2007. Placing peer ratings in context: systematic influences beyond rate performance, Personnel Psychology, 60, 93-126.
Dipboye, R. L., & dePontbriand, R. 1981. Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248–251.
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. 1990. A contingency approach to appraisal satisfaction: an initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal characteristics. Journal of Management, 16(3): 619–632.
Fletcher, C. 1978. Manager-subordinate communication and leadership style: A field study of their relationship to perceived outcomes of appraisal interviews. Personnel Review, 7, 56-62
Fletcher, C. 2001. Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 74, 473-487
Fletcher, C. 2002. Appraisal: An Individual Psychological Perspective. In Sonnentag, S (Ed.), Psychological management of individual performance.
Freeberg, N. E. 1969. Relevance of rater-ratee acquaintance in the validity and reliability of ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(6): 518-524.
Funder, D.C. 1987. Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgement. Psycological Bulletin, 101, 75-90.
Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. 1990. Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 371– 377.
Greguras, G.J., Robie, C., Schleider, D.J. & Goff III, M. 2003. A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings Personnel psychology, 56, 1-20. Greller, M. M. 1978. The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview.
Academy of Management Journal,21, 646-658.
Harris, C. 1988. A comparison of employee attitudes toward two performance appraisal systems. Public Personnel Management, 17 (4), 443-456
Hartog den, D.N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. 2004. Performance Management: A model and research agenda. Applied Psychology: An international review, 53 (4): 556-569. Heneman, R.L., & Wexley, K.N. 1983. The effects of time delay in rating and amount of
information observed on performance rating accuracy. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(4): 677-686.
Huber, V.L., Neale, M.A., & Northcraft, G.B. 1987. Judgement by heuristics: Effects of rate and rater characteristics and performance standards on performance-related judgements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40: 149-169. Ilgen, D.R., & Feldman, J.M. 1983. Performance appraisal: A process focus. In L. Cummings
& B. Shaw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. & Taylor, M.S. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.
Jones, G.R. 2006. Organizational Theory, Design, and Change. Pearson Education Limited. Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of performance evaluation decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80-105.
Kaufman, H. 1960. The forest ranger: A study in administrative behaviour. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J.M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22 375-403
Kikoski, J.F., & Litterer, J.A. 1983. Effective communication in performance appraisal.
Public Personnel Management Journal. 33-42
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J.L. 1980. Performance rating. Psychological bulletin, 87: 72-107. Landy, F. J., & Guion, R. M. 1970. Development of scales for the measurement of
work motivation. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 5(1): 93-103. Latane, B., Williams. K., & Harkins, S. 1979. Many hands may lighten work: The causes and
consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 822-832.
Latham, G.P., Cummings, L.L. & Mitchell, T.R. 1981. Behavioral strategies to improve performance. Organizational Dynamics, 5-23
Lawler, E. E. 1967. The multi-trait-multi-rater approach to measuring managerial job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,51: 369-381.
Lefkowitz, J. 2000. The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance rating: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73:67-85.
Levy, P.E. & Williams, J.R. 2004. The Social Context of Performance appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future. Journal of Management, 30 (6), 881-905
Mitchell. T. R. 1983. The effects of social, task, and situational factors on motivation,
performance, and appraisal. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory: 39-59. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Mohrman, A. M, & Lawler, E. E. 1981. Improving the contextual fit of appraisal systems. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
Mount, M. K. 1983. Comparisons of managerial and employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal system. Personnel Psychology, 36,99-110.
Mount, M.K., & Thompson, D.E. 1987. Cognitive categorization and quality of performance ratings. Journal of Applies Psychology. 72: 240-246.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. 1995. Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murphy, K.R., Garcia, M., Kerkar, S., Martin, C., & Balzer., W.K. 1982. Relationship
Between Observational Accuracy and Accuracy in Evaluating Performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67(3): 320-325.
Nemeroff, W. F., & Wexley, K. N. 1979. An exploration of the relationship between
performance feedback interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers and subordinates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 25–34. Pallant, J. 2005, SPSS Survival Manual: A Step-by-Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS
for Windows (Version 12), 2nd ed., Allen & Unwin, Sydney
Pettijohn, L.S., Parker, R.S., Pettijohn, C.E., & Kent, J.L. 2001. Performance appraisals: usage, criteria and observations. Journal of Management Development, 20(9):754-771.
Raymark, P.H., Balzer, W.K., & DeLaTorre, F. 1999. A preliminary investigation of the sources of information used by raters when appraising performance. Journal of
business and psychology, 14(2): 319-339.
Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. 1991. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, Academic Press, San Diego, CA
Scotter van, J.R., Moustafa, K., Burnett, J.R., & Michael, P.G. 2006. Influence of prior acquaintance with the rate on rater accuracy and halo. Journal of Management Development, 26(8): 790-803.
Scullen, S.E., Mount, M.K., & Goff, M. 2000. Understanding the Latent Structure of Job Performance Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6): 956-970.
Srivirnas, S. & Motowidlo, S. 1987. Effects of Rater’s Stress on the Disperion and Favorabiliy of Performance Ratings, 72(2): 247-251.
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. 25(2):175-190.
Wayne, S.J., & Ferris, G.R. 1990. Influence Tactics, Affect, and Exchange Quality in
Supervisor-Subordinate Interactions: A Laboratory Experiment and Field Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5): 487-499.
Wexley, K. N., & Klimoski, R. 1984. Performance appraisal: An update. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 2: 35-79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wherry, R.J. and Bartlett, C.J. 1982. The control of bias in ratings: a theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35(3): 521-551.
Wright, R.P. 2004. Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioral responses in appraisal research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 339-374
Yun, G.J., Donahue, L.M., Dudley, N.M., & McFarland, L.A. 2005. Rater Personality, Rating Format, and Social Context: Implications for Performance Appraisal Ratings.
Table 1: Correlations between independent and dependent variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Ease of observation 3.86 ,939 2. Span of control 17,56 11,689 -,363** 3. Spatial distance 3,75 ,729 -,226* ,102 4. Frequency informal work contact employee 2,75 1,367 ,169 -,108 ,075 5. Nature of informal work contact employee 3,76 ,792 ,160 -,061 -,030 ,340** 6. Frequency informal non-work contact employee 3,00 1,332 ,252** -,096 -,059 ,260** ,041 7. Nature of informal non-work contact employee 3,80 ,675 ,509** -,374** -,002 ,228* ,328** ,454** 8. Level of overall score PA (secondary data) 3,13 ,622 -,055 -,035 ,382** ,195 ,264* ,125 ,340** 9. Appraisal effectiveness 3,95 ,732 ,638** -,146 -,120 ,260** ,275* ,160 ,443** ,224* 10. Dispersion in PA ,3655 ,19001 ,074 ,-133 ,026 ,152 -,002 ,090 ,264* ,146 ,2121 N= 131 N= 91 (For 8 and 10) *p < ,05 **p < ,01 1
Table 2: Multiple regression analyses
Independent variables (Contextual factors)
Appraisal effectiveness Dispersion in PA’s
Ease of observation ,625*** -,025
Span of control ,208 -,040
Spatial distance -,065 -,060
Frequency informal work contact employee
,142 ,117
Nature of informal work contact employee -,047 -,213
Frequency informal non-work contact employee
-,255* -,078
Nature of informal non-work contact employee
,240 ,439*
Level of overall score PA (secondary data) ,236 R² ,538*** ,17 Δ R² ,459 ,06 F 6,844 1,539 N= 131
N= 91 (For dispersion in PA’s) N= 91 (For level of overall score PA) *p < ,05
Table 3: Moderator analyses nature informal work contact and informal non-work contact
Level of the overall performance score of the PA
Model Variable 1 2 Variable 1 2
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
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 werk- en 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) werk- en beoordelingsgesprek om)?
Zeer negatief
Negatief Neutraal Positief Zeer positief
werkgerelateerd contact met uw leidinggevende?
Zeer negatief
Negatief Neutraal Positief Zeer positief
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
Helemaal mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet mee eens /Niet mee oneens Grotendeels mee eens Helemaal mee eens
20. Het beoordelingsgesprek verliep ontspannen
21. Het beoordelingsgesprek werd niet onderbroken Helemaal mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet mee eens /Niet mee oneens Grotendeels mee eens Helemaal mee eens
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
ik tijdens het werk- en
beoordelingsgesprek, van mijn leidinggevende heb gekregen
Nooit Zelden (1 x per maand) Soms (1x per week) Regelmatig (meer dan 1 x per week) Vaak (vrijwel dagelijks)
26. Hoe vaak krijgt u van uw
leidinggevende individuele feedback over uw individuele werkprestaties?
Zeer negatief
Negatief Neutraal Positief Zeer positief
27. De individuele feedback die ik van mijn leidinggevende krijg is meestal
Nooit Zelden (1 x per maand) Soms (1x per week) Regelmatig (meer dan 1 x per week) Vaak (vrijwel dagelijks)
28. Hoe vaak krijgt u van uw
leidinggevende groepsfeedback over uw groepsprestaties?
Zeer negatief
Negatief Neutraal Positief Zeer positief
29. De groepsfeedback die ik van mijn leidinggevende krijg is meestal
Helemaal mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet mee eens /Niet mee oneens Grotendeels mee eens Helemaal mee eens
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
samenwerken om mijn baan goed uit te kunnen voeren
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
Helemaal mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet mee eens /Niet mee oneens Grotendeels mee eens Helemaal mee eens
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
39. Het werk- en 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 werk- en beoordelingsgesprek 41. Het werk- en beoordelingsgesprek
helpt mij om mijn werk beter te doen 42. Ik vind het werk- en
beoordelingsgesprek een prettige ervaring
43. Ik ben tevreden over de wijze waarop het werk- en 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
baan worden benadrukt in mijn 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
