Analysis on The Rehabs

Executive Summary

      The purpose of the present paper is to conduct an analysis of “The Rehabs” Performance appraisal (PA) system in place. This was achieved by obtaining copies of the PA policy and also copies of the feedback sheets that both employer and employees use to rate their performance. Subsequently interviews were carried out with two staff members, one the employee receiving the feedback and two the rater, which was the staff member who delivered the PA. To effectively analyze “The Rehab’s” PA systems, research was conducted on the various factors that compose an effective PA system.

      Upon completion of the PA research it was identified that “The Rehab’s” 360-degree PA system was flawed and lacking in three key aspects. The first was communication, which was then followed by reliability and finally ended with bias and rater errors. These three factors are very crucial for an effective PA system. The data gathered from the interviews supported this papers findings and provided a clear direction for improvement.

      As such, following the extensive research this paper provides solutions that “The Rehab” may be able to adopt in order to improve the quality, accuracy and effectiveness of their PA system such as converting to a Management by Objectives system.

 

Introduction

 

      Performance appraisal can be seen as a measure of organizational effectiveness via the performance monitoring, communicating and development of employees by an organization (Becton, Portis, & Schraeder, 2007; Bizman, Fox, & Garti, 2005; Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Prussia, & Wu, 2004; Lam, Yik, & Schaubroeck, 2002; Martin & Bartol, 1998; Stone, 2008; Pierce, Podsakoff, & Whiting, 2008; Robbins et al., 2003; Tziner & Latham, 1989). However there are many types of PA (Robbins et al., 2003; Stone, 2008) and the one specific type this paper will focus on is that on 360-degree feedback. The method of choice for a local drug and alcohol rehab is 360-degree PA and feedback. This is a method in which intern counselors are subject to every year in order to gain some form of feedback. As will be demonstrated later in this paper, there are many flaws that exist with “The Rehab’s” current 360-degree PA system.

      As stated by Robbins et al (2003) 360-degree feedback is a method that uses a various range of sources to acquire information about an individual’s skill level. This range can include supervisors, clients, co-workers, and the employee himself (Brett & Atwater, 2001; Craig & Kaiser, 2005; Robbins, et al., 2003). This process in order to be as accurate as possible requires interrater agreement (Thornton III & Zorich, 1980) and clear, goal specific items to be the subject of evaluation (Craig & Kaiser, 2005; Heslin, Latham, & Vandewalle, 2005). The process fundamentally involves the employee rating himself then the employer consulting various different sources in an attempt to paint the most accurate picture of the employee’s performance (Robbins et al., 2003; Tziner, 1984). The two then meet in a formal setting and discuss the data obtained. Generally positive feedback is supposed to be awarded for positive behaviors and recommendations for training are the preferred tactic when negative feedback is given (Craig & Kaiser, 2005; Stone, 2008).

      Generally, no matter what type of PA system a company adopts the desired outcomes are the same. They all seek to evaluate employee performance, identify training needs, promotions, demotions, and terminations (Bizman et al, 2005; Brett & Atwaters, 2001; Lam et al., 2002).Stone (2008), Robbins et al (2003) and Martin and Bartol (1998) suggest that an effective PA will consist of specific behaviour focus, impersonal feedback, goal orientated feedback, timing, and understanding.

      When specific behaviours are targeted the employee will understand what he is being assessed on and what possible options are available to improve on any deficits (Kinicki et al., 2004; Martin & Bartol, 1998). In sum this results in less ambiguity of expected behaviours, thus communication of such expectations is essential if the PA system is to be effective.

      It is of utmost importance that feedback is kept impersonal. The employee must feel that their work skills are being judged, not their personality (Becton et al., 2007; Martin & Bartol, 1998; Robbins et al, 2003). However in stating this, it is well known that subjectivity is present to some degree in PA systems via bias or influenced by formation of personal relationships in the workplace (Brett & Atwater, 2001; Martin & Bartol, 1998).

      As stated by Heslin et al (2005) a “failure to acknowledge a significant improvement in the behavior [Sic] of an employee can lead to employee frustration, resentment and withdrawal” (842). Thus performance should be measurable to some degree and this degree is by making PA goal orientated. Without specific goals in mind, employees will not have a clear understanding of what the organization holds as a valued output and this impacts both the employee’s feelings of efficacy and the organization’s effectiveness (Griffin, 2002; Reichers, 1987).

      Finally timing and understanding are extremely crucial if one hopes to maintain an effective PA system (Bizman et al., 2005; Martin & Bartol, 1998; Robbins et al., 2003). Lam et al (2002) found that when feedback is delivered within a short time span such as monthly rather than annually that this can lead to positive outputs for both employers and employees. They further assert that the type of PA can improve developmental opportunities and increase morale when the PA is an accepted and understood process.             

      As stated by Stone (2008) when employee performance is increased, so to will organizational performance increase. In a perfect PA system these goals would be easily achieved and result in unhindered success for the company involved. But what happens when the PA does not follow the principles involved in running an effective PA system? What implications does it have for the organization?         

      As can be imagined there would be differing perspectives on the side of the employer and the employee. What one perceives the PA is doing and that which is actually experienced during the PA process in vivo.

       The following section of this report will detail the performance appraisal system utilized by “The Rehab”. The intended goal and employer view of the PA process will be compared and contrasted to the PA experience that the employee undergoes. For the purpose of this paper Kerry may be referred as the employer or the rater. Anna will be referred as either the employee or the ratee.    

 

HR Policy for Performance Appraisal:

Two sides of a rusty coin.

 

      The paper will now expand on the information gathered from both employer and employee to expand on the PA processes used by “The Rehab”.

      The information gathered from Kerry, the team leader responsible for feedback to the interns was ambiguous at best (for the full interview transcript see appendix A). Kerry identified 360-degree feedback as the method of choice for conducting PA’s. Kerry was also kind enough to send me the policy, feedback item sheet, and an organizational hierarchy (see appendix B&C). It is important to note that the only individuals appraised in this organization are the interns, which are also unpaid volunteers. They are appraised by the Clinical Director (Team Leader) after she has gained input from each other work division with the exception of the CEO, Subcommittees, and Board of directors.

      The performance management policy states that PA is a “practical procedure” that allows employees the chance to share past experiences, achievements and shortcomings, goals and action plans with upper management (Appendix B). The policy promotes confidentiality and stresses honesty from both employer and employee. The above mentioned is as thorough as “The Rehab’s” PA policy stretches, this left the interview process to fill in the gaps.

      Kerry identified a 360-degree feedback PA system that consults almost all members and divisions in the organization in an attempt to gain an accurate report of individual performance. As stipulated by the policy and as identified by Kerry, the PA process is carried out six months after an employee commences work and then annually there after. Kerry maintained that these appointments were always kept as strict and timely feedback is needed and untimely and inaccurate feedback does neither party any good.

      Kerry advised that the interns are basically the only ones formally excluded from the PA consultation process. There exists no avenue for peer review within the intern division. Kerry justified this by stating that interns are not knowledgeable enough to rate their peers and that social cliques may influence overall the ratings and promptly stated that no biases are believed to exist in the current system.

      The Performance Management policy stated that goal setting and development were issues that were encouraged throughout the PA process and that these are an underlying goal. Kerry was quick to confirm this point.

      As for being valid and objective Kerry stated that as “The Rehab” uses all the same feedback item sheets and all the same staff is consulted for each individual and that validity and objectivity is maintained. Kerry further asserted that the feedback item sheet is clear and goal orientated and this enables consistent ratings without the presents of bias, error or prejudice.

      As can be viewed from the policy in appendix A, not much can be learnt about the policy and procedures of “The Rehab’s” PA system. A comparison of the statements made by the employer and employee yield a much clearer picture as to the congruence of PA policy and PA practice. In Kerry’s view the current PA system appears to be “practicing what it preaches” however to get a fuller picture it is imperative that we compare her perceptions with those of the PA recipient, the employee Anna. Anna’s statements will be compared to both Kerry’s statements and the PA policy outline. This will give a thorough analysis of the gaps that exist between PA policy and PA practice.

      Anna was the employee interviewed for the purpose of this paper and her perception of the PA system utilized by “The Rehab” is quite contrasting to that of Kerry.  The feedback item sheet is listed in appendix C and it is important to note that the evaluation of the PA policy and practice has taken account of both feedback sheet items and verbal communication from Anna. In sum as can be seen in appendix C and appendix A what the PA system sets out to do and what it actually achieves is two different things.

      To start the 10 items listed on the feedback sheet will be compared with the  Performance Management policy.  This is to analyze whether the feedback items achieve what the policy sets out to achieve,

      As mentioned earlier “The Rehab’s” goal for PA is to help employees reach their potential and achieve personal and professional goals. The policy is brief yet vague. Its aim is provide to a means for both parties to reach the following outcomes:

 

-Review experiences

-Diagnose the cause of both success and shortcomings.   

-Establish goals

-Determine actions needed.

 

       A problem arises with this process as the individual’s interpretation of the items in the feedback sheet may be quite different to that of the rater. As can be seen in appendix C the 10 items are as follows:

 

-Client satisfaction                                -Leadership

-Quality                                                 -Accepts Responsibility

-Job Knowledge                                    -Problem Solving

-Productivity                                         -Use of Technology

-Team                                                     -Health and Safety

 

      These items are very broad and considering the range of skills and tasks necessary to complete the complex treatment work at “The Rehab” these headings are vague to say the least. As can be seen, they do not effectively address the four outcomes that the PA system was designed to cover. The ratings below, at, and above are to vague. An individual hoping to further develop skills in a lacking area may be discouraged as in order to admit the need for training they are required to say their performance is below average. Alternatively an individual could say they were average and risk the need for training to go unnoticed.

      It is now that the focus of this paper will turn to that of employee Anna, and her experience of the PA system.

      Anna is an intern drug and alcohol counselor and at the time of the interview had been employed by “The Rehab”  for the past 13 months. Anna mentioned that her accounts of the PA system would be rather accurate as she only received her PA eight weeks ago.

      From Anna’s responses (See appendix A,p2) to the first few questions sit is clear that she has some idea of the concept of 360-degree feedback and believes that the appraiser Kerry is in a position to evaluate her. The discrepancies begin when Anna is asked about the form, structure and quality of feedback. As mentioned above feedback was given to Anna eight weeks ago, as she has been employed at “The Rehab”  for the past 13 months we can already see that the PA did not follow the time frame stipulated in the policy. Anna stated that feedback was schedule for September but delivered three months later, thus effecting the timely aspect of PA.

      The abovementioned lateness also leads Anna to believe that the feedback was inaccurate as the events items she rated her self on in July 07 would have changed their value by December 07. In answering this question Anna also touched on  the fact that she believed that the PA took into account her personal life which she believes is not an issue with regards to PA. When asked whether she believed if the PA system was subject to bias, prejudice or personality factors Anna revealed some stark contrast to that of Kerry and the policy.

      Anna stated numerous times that her personal life was a point of discussion. Item number five appendix C in her mind summed it up. Those who are in the “circle” gain favorable ratings despite their social life, thus refuting the validity of the feedback item sheet despite Kerry’s believe that its structure was concrete. This contradicts the Performance Management systems objective of reviewing past experiences. Whilst it is reviewing a form of past experience, Anna’s social life has no relevance to her ability to perform her job tasks. In Anna’s eyes the PA system was a vague, negative and bias experience. She did not receive any prompting for future training nor did she establish any achievements or goals with Kerry. All in all Anna perceived the experience as negative. We can see that the experience of Anna is incongruent with the objective the PA was designed to accomplish.

      What could be some of the possible explanations for this grand mismatch in experience and intention? What could be done to improve “The Rehabs” PA system in the future?

      The next section of this paper analyses the literature on PA systems and provides solutions that may fill in the gaps that exist in “The Rehab’s” current PA system.

Performance Appraisal Analysis:
The performance appraisal weigh in.

 

      The present section of this paper will now compare “The Rehab’s” PA system to that recommended by the literature. The PA system is said to encompass many objectives, the most frequent of which are organizational goals, identifying training and development needs, reward and performance, standards review, and employer/employee collaboration (Becton et al., 2007; Bizman et al., 2005; Griffin & Ebert, 2002; Heslin et al., 2005; Kinicki et al., 2004; Lam et al., 2002; Martin & Bartol, 1998; Robbins et al.,2003; Stone, 2006). The research on PA’s was consistent with the findings of Robbins et al (2003, p380).The six feedback goals stated should enhance an organization’s PA system, these are as follows:

 

-Focus on specific behaviours                           -Consider the timing of feedback

-Keep feed back impersonal                              -Ensure understanding

-Make feedback goal orientated                        -Direct negative feedback to            behavior that can be controlled.

 

      As stated by Martin and Bartol (1998) PA’s should be focused on specific competencies the employee achieves or fails to achieve. They further assert that if any gaps in performance exist , the employee should be informed on how to improve their performance. “The Rehab’s” policy clearly conforms to this objective as it outlines that achievements and short comings are the focus of the PA.   

      Timely feedback is both beneficial for the organization and employees but also essential (Becton et al., 2007; Lam et al., 2002; Martin & bartol,1998). It is essential that PA’s are timely as negative work performance can be detrimental to an organization’s output as well as damaging to the trust between employer and employee (Lam et al., 2002; Martin & Bartol, 1998; Robbins et al, 2003).

      Quite possibly one of the most important objectives of an effective PA system would be to keep feedback impersonal (Robbins et al., 2003). “The Rehab” has no policy safe guards against this however the data collected form Anna explains that “The Rehab” is seriously lacking in this objective. Subjectivity is inevitable to some degree in the PA process (Martin & Bartol, 1998). Bizman et al (2005) found evidence that people retain information about social situations, and this has lead raters to selectively attend to these aspects of the ratee in addition to performance information ( Craig & Kaiser, 2005). This selective perception can result in a halo effect (Bessant & Watts, 1999; Gardener & Martinko, 1988; Reichers, 1987; Ritti & Levy, 2007; Thornton III, & Zorich, 1980) which will result in the individuals social mishaps becoming integrated with work performance, thus punishing negative social actions with negative PA ratings (Monte & Sollod, 2003; Myers, 2007; Rosenberg & Turner, 1988; Weiten, 2004).

      A different source of bias comes from lack of understanding (Craig & Kaiser, 2005; Tziner, 1984). “The Rehab” currently has no policy measures that effectively accommodate understanding between rater and ratee. As mentioned earlier the items in the feedback item sheet can be interpreted in an abundance of ways and it is this ambiguity that fails “The Rehabs” ensuring of understanding. Craig and Kaiser (2005) state that how “items are written and interater reliability” (235) is managed directly impact on the understanding of the PA objectives and process. Craig and Kaiser (2005) further assert that some PA items are leading whilst others are ambiguous. This is a problem in 360-degree feedback as multiple raters will interpret items differently and therefore attach stronger judgments to particular item ratings (Craig &Kaiser, 2005; Tziner & Latham, 1989).Good communication was identified as a method for decreasing the chances of misunderstanding to occur (Craig & Kaiser, 2005; Martin & Bartol, 1998).As can be seen from the policy and interview transcripts “The Rehab” has neither clear feedback items or strong communication which is essential for achieving the understanding objective of an effective PA system. 

      As identified by Robbins et al (2003) ensuing feedback is goal orientated is crucial for an effective PA system. PA’s are seen as an effective way to communicate future goals (Craig & Kaiser, 2005; Martin & Bartol, 1998).As can be seen in the policy the establishment of future goals is listed as a PA objective. However as can be understood by Anna’s comments, in practice these objectives are vague or ambiguous.            

     Finally directing negative feedback to behavior that controlled is important in an effective PA system. “The Rehab’s” policy states that the PA will determine actions each party will take which was interpreted to mean that shortcomings will be addressed with action plans. Once again as can be seen by Anna’s interview, in practice this simply did not happen. As found by Becton et al (2007) PA works best when the items are behavior focused. As behavior is an aspect under direct control of the individual (Monte & Sollod, 2003; Weiten, 2004) it is logical that negative appraisals should be aimed at changeable behaviors. Furthermore recipients of negative PA should be referred to training recommendations, however this was not the case with “The Rehab PA practice”.
      The present section of this paper demonstrates that “The Rehab” conforms to the majority of PA essential concepts. However, there are three main areas that “The Rehab” is lacking in which can be extremely detrimental to the organizations long term growth and development.

      These three areas are accurate and unbiased PA, communication, and interater interpretation and error.   

 

Recommendations:

“The Rehab’s” PA Overhaul

 

      After thorough analysis of “The Rehab’s” PA system and the current PA literature there have three significant challenges that the organization must overcome in order to have an effective PA system. These are accurate and unbiased PA, communication, and interater interpretation and error. This paper will now identify the detrimental possibilities these challenges may pose to “The Rehab”. Also this paper will recommend evidence based changes that can help remedy the current PA condition.

      Accurate and unbiased PA’s are a crucial element is an organizations success (Pierce et al., 2008; Martin & Bartol, 2003;Tziner & Latham, 1989). However from the present analysis it appears that “The Rehab” does not implement accurate and unbiased PA. Bizman et al (2005) have noted that people store social information and us it to create schemas about an individuals character. The 360-degree model used by “The Rehab” may reflect a common in-group bias. In group bias can be described as a tendency to favor one’s own group members and view out group members in a negative light (Bowditch & Buono, 2005; Monte & Sollod, 2003; Myers, 2007; Ritti & Levy, 2007; Rosenberg & Turner, 1981; Thornton III & Zorich, 1980; Weiten, 2004). Raters may selectively attend to negative social issues rather than positive work behaviours in an attempt to protect the clinical team’s in-group formation. As stated by Becton et al (2007) this kind of PA relationship can cause tension amongst raters and ratees. An easy remedy for this type of bias would be ensuring that ratees are only evaluated on behavior focused items and nothing more (Martin & Bartol, 1998) this reduces the impact that relationship bias may have on the PA process (Bizman et al., 2005; Heslin et al., 2005; Kinicki et al., 2004). Accuracy however is a little difficult to remedy so systematically. A study conducted by Tziner (1984) found that training PA raters improves their evaluative skills and increases accuracy. Becton et al (2007) proposes rater and ratee training on item definitions with regards to specific behaviors that are evaluated may increase the accuracy of a PA system. Therefore if  “The Rehab” can create PA items that are solely behavior based and also have employees trained on the meanings of these items, then the accuracy of the PA system should increase whilst at the same time bias should decrease (Tziner, 1984; Tziner & Latham, 1989).

      Effective communication seems to be one of “The Rehab’s” strongest vices. Communication for the purpose of this paper is focused on verbal and written communication forms. Lam et al (2002) state that the way in which individuals interpret their ratings and rating items impacts the PA process. Negative ratings that are biased or not sufficiently justified risk de-motivating employees and creating tension (Brett & Atwater, 2001). This is especially the case with “The Rehab” as negative PA appeared not to be followed up on nor did the policy stipulate any methods to deal with negative PA for the employee.                    

Brett and Atwater (2001) recommend establishing follow up strategies to effectively engage and communicate with the employee and set future goals. Tziner and Latham (1989) suggest that this approach may result in positive perceptions of the PA process as the employee may interpret the follow-up as the supervisors attempt to help them achieve success. The above mentioned rater training will also develop the rater’s credibility amongst those who are appraised, this is said to facilitate greater two way communication and understanding between both parties (Kinicki et al., 2004). The second form of communication deficiency identified was written communication. As can be seen in appendix C the PA items are not explicit, nor are they behaviorally based or task specific. This ambiguous communication could have resulted in employees rating themselves high on an item due to lack of understanding whereas the rater would have rated the item with a different vigor. Brett and Atwater (2001) found that when employees received a rating lower than they expected they were often disgruntled . Thus ensuring effective and accurate communication will alleviate the negativity associated with the PA process by giving needed detail and improvement advice. This will also increase organizational effectiveness through higher employee morale due to accurate feedback (Heslin et al., 2005; Pierce et al., 2008).

      The final challenge “The Rehab’s” PA system faces is interater interpretation and error. How raters interpret behaviours and written items can vary from person to person (Craig & Kaiser, 2005). Craig and Kaiser (2005) further assert that individual differences across the multiple raters used in 360-degree feedback results in rater errors such as leniency error (Craig & Kaiser, 2005). Leniency error is said to be when a rater consistently gives high ratings to all employees  (Bizman et al., 2005; Martin & Bartol, 1998; Murphy & Balzer, 2003). This is thought to arise in instances where the rater is given conflicting information from multiple raters and opts to give overall higher ratings to avoid tension ( Becton et al., 2007; Bizman et al., 2005; Martin & Bartol, 1998).

      Martin and Bartol (1998) suggest that creating a forced distribution rating system would prevent leniency error and promote careful consideration of PA ratings.

      The current PA system appears to have an excessive amount of error, inaccuracy and bias that is a result of its multiple raters input. As can be seen in figure 1.the gap between consultation, collaboration and employee feedback is too great.         

 

      Based on the evidence that focus on specific behaviors yields more positive PA outcomes and also tends to be more accurate (Brett & Atwater 2001; Becton et al., 2007; Bizman et al., 2005; Martin & Bartol, 1998) the present paper recommends that “The Rehab” convert to a Management By Objectives (MBO) model of PA. Management by objectives  “focuses on end goals” and is results orientated (Robbins et al., 2003). Thus it would seem that MBO would be a better PA system for “The Rehab” as it would lower interater bias, rater error, and be less time consuming than the current 360-degree system. Also it provides objective data (Robbins et al., 2003; Stone, 2008) that can be measured and compared to the performance of others or organizational standards. This would also lower the ambiguity of rater items and of task expectations for both employers and employees (see figure 2.).

 

Conclusion

 

      The present paper analyzed the PA system that a local drug and alcohol rehabilitation unit had in place to evaluate its interns. The paper identified short comings in the organizations 360-feedback system and provided recommendations which would essentially convert the current system into a MBO system. The present paper demonstrated the importance of impersonal PA that is low in error and bias and that effectively measures individual performance against organizational goals. The importance of behaviourally based assessment items has been demonstrated by the conflict of interview information provided by “The Rehab’s” rater and ratee. Furthermore the “The Rehab” did not practice what it preached when it came to PA which resulted in a lack of trust for the PA source and also resulted in lack of motivation for at least one intern, Anna. Given the evidence presented in this paper, it has been demonstrated that 360-degree PA conducted in a poor manner can be extremely detrimental to an organizations morale and trust.

 

References

 

      Ashforth, B,E., Sluss, D,M., & Saks, A,M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, p447-462.

 

      Bernadin, H,J., & Buckley, M,R. (2000). Strategies and rater training, Academy of Management Review, 6, p205-212.

 

      Bernadin, H,J., & Pence, E,C. (1980). Effects of rater training: Creating new response sets and decreasing accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), p60-66.

 

 

      Bessant, J., & Watts, R. (1999). Sociology Australia, Griffin Press Pty Ltd, Adelaide SA.

 

      Bowditch, J., & Buono, A,F. (2005). A Primer on organizational Behavior, (6^th ed.)  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

 

      Brett, J, F., & Atwater, L,E. (2001). 360-degree Feedback: Accuaracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), p930-942.

 

      Choi, J,N., & Kim, M,U. (1999).The Organizational Application of Groupthink and Its Limitations in organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (2),297-306.

 

      DelaHaye, B. (2005). Human Resource Development: Adult learning and knowledge management (2^nd ed) John Wiley and sons, Milton. 

 

      Dimmock, J, A., Grove, J,R., & Eklund, R,C. (2005). Reconceptualizing Team Identification: New Dimensions and Their Relationship to Intergroup Bias. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(2), p75-86. 

 

 

      Fox, S., Bizman, A., & Garti, A. (2005). Is distributional appraisal more effective than the traditional performance appraisal method? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), p165-172.

 

      Heslin, P,A., & Latham, G,P. (2005).The effect of implicit person theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), p842-856.

 

      Gardener, W,L., & Martinko, M,J. (1988). Impression Management in Organizations. The Journal of Management, Vol 14 (2): 321-338. 

 

      Griffin, R,W., & Ebert R,J. (2002). Business, (6^th eds.) Prentice Hall.

 

      Kaiser, R,B., & Craig, B, S. (2005).Building a better mouse trap: Item characteristics associated with 360-degree feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and research, 57(4), p235-245.

 

      Kinicki, A, J., Prussia, G,E., Wu, B., & McKee-Ryan, F,M. (2004). A covariance Structure analysis of employees’ response to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology,89(6), p1057-1069.

 

      Lam, S,S,K., Yik, M,S,M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: The role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), p192-201.

 

      Martin, D,C., & Bartol, K,M. (1998). Performance appraisal: Maintaining system effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 27(2), p223-230.  

 

      Monte, CF., & Sollod, RN. (2003). Beneath the Mask. An Introduction to Personality Theories.(7^th ed) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

 

      Myers, D, G. (2007). Social Psychology, (9^th ed) New York: McGraw Hill.

 

      Murphey, K,R., & Balzer, W,K.( 2003). Rater errors and rating accuracy, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, p619-624.

 

      Reichers, A,E. (1987). An Interactionist Perspective of Newcomer Socialization Rates. Academy of Management Review, Vol 12(2): 278-287.

 

      Ritti, R,R., & Levy, S. (2007). The Ropes to Skip and the Ropes to Know. Studies in Organizational Behavior, (7^th ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

 

      Robbins, S,P., Bergman, R., Stagg, I., & Coulter, M. (2003). Foundations of Management. Pearson Education Australia. Frenchs Forest New South Wales Australia.

 

      Rosenberg, M., & Turner, R,H. (1981). Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, New York: Basic Books Inc.

 

      Stone, R,J. (2008). Managing Human Resources, (2^nd eds.) John Wiley and Sons. Milton Queensland Australia, LTD.  

 

      Schraeder, M., Becton, J,B., & Poris, R. (2007).A critical examination of performance appraisals. An organizations friend or foe? The journal of Quality and Participation, 1, p20-25.

 

      Thornton, G,C., & Zorich, S. (1980). Training to improve observer accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(3), p351-354.

 

      Tziner, A. (1984). A fairer examination of rating scales when used for performance appraisal in a real organization setting. Journal of Occupational Behavior(pre-1986),5(2), p103-112.

 

      Tziner, A., & Latham, G,P. (1989). The effects of the appraisal instrument, feedback and goal-setting on worker satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-1988), 10(2), p145-152.  

 

      Weiten, W. (2004). Psychology: Themes and variations (6^th ed.). Bellmont, CA: Wadsworth.

 

      Whiting, S,W., Podsakoff, P,M., & Pierce, J,R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), p125-139.