Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Separating the Developmental and Evaluative Performance Appraisal Uses

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The multiple uses of performance appraisal (PA) have been the focus of much research, often yielding conflicting findings and conclusions. This study used an untreated control group design to examine the effects of separating the developmental and evaluative PA uses (in time and by person) on employee attitudes and behavioral intentions. Results indicated no effect on employee attitudes, however, employees in the separated PA group reported they were less likely to use development in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Balzer, W. K., & Sulsky, L. M. (1990). Performance appraisal effectiveness and productivity. In Psychology in Organizations: Integrating Science and Practice, edited by K. Murphy & F. Saal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belasco, J. A., & Stayer, R. C. (1994). Why empowerment doesn't empower: The bankruptcy of current paradigms. Business Horizons, 37, 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work. Boston: Kent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1963). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonito, J. (1990). Motivating employees continuous improvement efforts-Part 3: Additional critical success factors. Productivity Management Review and APICS News, 10, 32–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. L., & Schwab, D. P. (1973). Performance in Organizations: Determinants and Appraisal. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge: MIT Institute for Advanced Engineering Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T., & Meglino, B. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNisi, A. S., & Williams, K. J. (1988). Cognitive approaches to performance appraisal. In Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 6), edited by G. Ferris & K. Rowland. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, H., & Axel, H. (1991). Encouraging Employees Self-Management in Financial and Career Planning. New York, NY: The Conference Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devanna, M. A., Fombrun, C. J., & Tichy, N. M. (1984). A framework for strategic human resources management. Strategic Human Resource Management, 33–51.

  • Drenth, P. J. D. (1984). Personnel appraisal. In P. J. D. Drenth, Hk. Thierry, P. J. Williams, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology. Amsterdam: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, W. T. (1991). One on one coaching. Successful Meetings, 4, 102, 104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follett, M. P. (1926). The giving of orders. In H. C. Medcalf (Ed.), Scientific Foundations of Business Administration. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabor, C. (1990). What is so frightening about "driving out fear"? An analysis of one organization's attempts to redesign its annual performance system. In G. N. McLean, S. R. Damme, & R. A. Swanson (Eds.), Performance Appraisal: Perspectives on a Quality Management Approach. University of Minnesota Training and Development Research Center and the American Society for Training and Development Research Committee.

  • Gooding, G. J. (1988). Career moves-for the employee, for the organization. Personnel, 65, 112–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greller, M. M. (1978). The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 646–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, E. L. (1995). Separating employee development from salary systems. The Human Resource Professional, 8, 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haskell, J. R. (1993). Getting employees to take charge of their careers. Training and Development, 47, 51–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905–925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A. & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanin-Lovers, J. (1990). Making performance evaluation work. Journal of Compensation and Benefits, 5, 360–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S., Hill, K. D., & Broedling, L. (1986). The first-line supervisor: Phasing out or here to stay. Academy of Management Review, 11, 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., Snell, S. A., & Wexley, K. N. (1987). Systems model of the performance appraisal interview process. Industrial Relations, 26, 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P. (1988). Human resources training and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 545–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, K. E. (1992). First you train, then you coach. Bottomline, 9, 34–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (1990). Smoothing out appraisal systems. HRMagazine, 35, 72–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longenecker, C. O., Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, R. M., Smith, D. E., & Hassett, C. E. (1984). Accuracy of performance ratings as affected by rater training and perceived purpose of rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNerney, D. J. (1995). Improved performance appraisals: Process of elimination. HRFocus, 72, 1, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 43, 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, B. S. (1988). Managing in the '90's: Tomorrow's best managers: Where are they now? Industry Week, 237, 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R., Balzer, W. K., Kellam, K. L., & Armstrong, J. (1984). Effect of purpose of rating on accuracy in observing teacher behavior and evaluating teacher performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 320–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostroff, C. (1993). Rater perceptions, satisfaction and performance rating. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 345–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, J. B., & Lawler, E. E. (1986). Does salary discussion hurt the developmental performance appraisal? Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Decision Processes, 37, 357–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaughnessy, C., & Howell, M. (1993). Coaching and the long-distance manager. Canadian Banker, 100, 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Skokie, IL: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Measurement. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. J., DeNisi, A. S., Blencoe, A. G., & Cafferty, T. P. (1985). The role of appraisal purposes: Effects of purpose on information acquisition and utilization. Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Decision Processes, 35, 314–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W. F. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of the appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752–758.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Mays College and Graduate School of Business, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4221

    Wendy R. Boswell

  2. Cornell University, USA

    John W. Boudreau

Authors
  1. Wendy R. Boswell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John W. Boudreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boswell, W.R., Boudreau, J.W. Separating the Developmental and Evaluative Performance Appraisal Uses. Journal of Business and Psychology 16, 391–412 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012872907525

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012872907525

Search

Navigation