Bowie State University

PERCEPTIONS OF FAIRNESS: INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN THE WORK PLACE

A Thesis Submitted toThe Faculty of the Arts

Graduate School

of

Bowie State University

In Partial FulfillmentOf the requirements for

The degree of

Master of ArtsIn Organizational Communications

By

Agbenu Esther Ochoga

May 2007

BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITYTHE GRADUATE SCHOOL

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

MASTER'S THESIS COMMITTEE

_____________________________Mathias Mogekwu, Ph.D.

_____________________________ Otis Thomas, Ph.D.

______________________________Ritchard M’Bayo, Ph.D.Thesis Advisor

Candidate: Agbenu Esther Ochoga

Date of Defense: (May, 2007)

ABSTRACT

ii

Job and organizational changes has promoted the importance of social skill at work,

however employee’s have not been able to fully explore to their advantage the performance

appraisal process which is a formally recognized means of measuring work related social

skill and mental ability.

The research investigates the interaction between how employees negotiate their

identity in the workplace and its implication for performance appraisal by supervisors. The

study proposed two hypothesis and the results indicated that supervisors’ positive regards

(liking) for subordinates which is often obtained through interpersonal communication is

associated frequently with higher performance appraisal (PA) ratings, and with other finding

such as greater halo, reduced accuracy, a better interpersonal relationship, and a

disinclination to punish poor performance. Similarly, subordinates perception of fairness of

performance appraisal is enhance by supervisors positive interpersonal communication.

The interaction of fairness indicates that Enhanced knowledge in the dynamics of self

presentation through interpersonal relations will encourage perception of fairness in

employee during performance appraisal.

Implications of these results and direction for future research are discussed.

DEDICATION

iii

This work is dedicated to Adonia, my sovereign lord who gave me the strength to see it

through and to Donna Oti who always believes in me and positioned the ladder for me to climb.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

iv

My special thanks to my parents Barrister John Ochoga and Dr. Mrs. Diana Ochoga for

scarifies, goodness, prayers, love and respect. And to Attah, Ichemeta and Obande, my bothers

and Sister whom I always find comfort and support in.

A special thanks to Mathias Ayendi, my lovely friend for his continued patience and

support during my schooling period and mostly my writing period. Thanks for making sure I

always stayed focused and comfortable.

Many thanks to Fr Martin Yina for his continuous prayers and guidance, to the

Ayendi’s, Aunt Julie, aunt Pat and aunt Esther for their continuous supports during my school

years and mostly during my period of writing, which always takes time away from them.

My thanks and appreciation to Dr. Ritchard M’Bayo who has mentored me through out

this program and who is responsible for helping me conceive the idea for this thesis. I appreciate

your patience and your insentience that I never produce a less than perfect work.

To my committee members, Dr Mathias Mogekwu and Dr Otis Thomas whom have

given me all their support even though I turned in my work at very short notice. Thanks to Dr.

Langmia for his help, he made sure that my writing had a very strong foundation and stayed

focus on the issues at hand.

To my class mates especial Annie and Wanda who always helped me through my

confessions and encouraged me to go on, God bless and help you follow your dreams.

Finally, I acknowledge everyone who has been part of my research process. I appreciate

all your assistances.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1Introduction..............................................................................................................1

Background..............................................................................................................2

Problem Statement....................................................................................................4

Theoretical Framework.............................................................................................4

Scope of Study........................................................................................................10

Significance of the Study........................................................................................10

Variable Definitions................................................................................................11

CHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW------------------------------------------------------.12Introduction............................................................................................................12

Background............................................................................................................12

Hypothesis..............................................................................................................13

CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY..............................................................................31Introduction......................................................................................................31

Research Method .............................................................................................31

Instrumentation.................................................................................................34

Sample and sampling method ..........................................................................36

Reliability and Validity.....................................................................................38

Statistical measures for analysis--------------------------------------------------------40

CHAPTER IV – FINDINGS............................................................................................42Introduction............................................................................................................42

Demographic descriptions.......................................................................................43

Findings..................................................................................................................52

CHAPTER V - INTERPRETATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................57Interpretations.........................................................................................................58

Limitations to study findings...................................................................................61

Recommendation....................................................................................................62

APPENDICES..................................................................................................................64Appendix A..................................................................................................................64Appendix B...................................................................................................................67

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................79LIST OF TABLES AND LIST OF FIGURES

vi

1. Taxonomy of Justice Perceptions......................................................................... 28

2. Gender of respondent (Supervisor)........................................................................44

3. Race of Respondents (Supervisors).......................................................................45

4. Respondents Number of Employee (Supervisors).................................................46

5. Respondents Job Title (Supervisors).....................................................................47

6. Respondents Years of Service (Supervisors).........................................................48

7. Gender of Respondent (Subordinate).....................................................................49

8. Race of Respondent (Subordinate)........................................................................50

9. Respondents Years of Employment (Subordinate)................................................51

10. Respondents job Group (Subordinate)...................................................................52

11. Chi-Square Test ............................................................................................54

12. Pearson Correlation Test........................................................................................56

CHAPTER 1

vii

INTRODUCTION

In the late 1950s performance appraisals began to be widely used in U.S.

organizations, and became a topic of interest to both scholars and practitioners (Lander &

Farr, 1980; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). These largely stemmed from the theorized link

between performance appraisal and improved individual and organizational performance.

This link can be understood and harnessed based on the communication implication of

performance appraisal vis-à-vis its message function – what communication does or how it

contributes to the overall functioning of the organization (Sockley-Zalabak; 2006)-

Performance appraisal may be defined in context as a structured formal interaction

between a subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview

(annual or semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and

discussed, with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for

improvement and skills development.

Through the experience of performance appraisal, employees learn which behaviors,

skills, attitudes, beliefs and values are rewarded. Employees, however, are not passive

receptors of the feedback emanating from these subordinate-supervisor interactions. While

many performance appraisal processes are managerially controlled in terms of timing, criteria

for measurement, etc, employees also act as processing agents who have the ability to exert

some control over how information is interpreted, their feelings about themselves, and their

contributions to the organization, their relationships with their supervisors and co-workers,

viii

and their behaviors. Therefore, when employees talk about or reflect on their individual and

collective identities at the work place, they are creating meanings and providing information

necessary to make choices and understand given realities within the concept of performance

appraisal.

This study examines how supervisor’s rate subordinates during performance

appraisal based on their perception of subordinates’ interpersonal communication. It also

seeks to measure subordinates perception of fairness of their performance appraisal.

Background

In organizational settings, performances appraisal is used to support a wide variety of

personnel reward decisions (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989; Murphy & Cleveland,

1995). To achieve this aim, it requires that the appraisal demonstrates adequate psychometric

characteristics (e.g., reliability, construct validity) and also be free of evaluation errors such

as leniency, halo etc. However Research has shown that performance ratings collected in

organizational settings typically suffer from leniencies which are promoted by administrative

policies, organizational culture, socialization processes and reward structures (Bernardin,

Cooke, & Villanova, 2000, Kozlowski et al, 1998).

To achieve accuracy, Performance appraisal has been studied from several

perspective, including management (Grote, 1996; Thomas & Bretz, 1994, McGregor, 1957),

human resources (Mani, 2002), psychology (landy & Farr, 1980; Levy & Williams.2004),

and communication (Downs, 1990; Stewart & Cash, 1985; Wanguri, 1995).

Within the field of communication, attention to appraisal has primarily focused on

performance feedback (Cusella, 1987; Geddes & Linnehan, 1996), the practice of

ix

interviewing (Stewart & Cash,1985), and investigating the relationship between appraisal and

a verity of other variables such as trust (O’Reilly & Anderson, 1980), satisfaction (Downs,

1990), or judgment of harassment (Remland & Jones, 1985). Communication scholars have

also been interested in examining how appraisal is taught (Erhart, 1976; Krayer, 1987) and

evaluating appraisal as an instrument (Adams, 1981; Williams & Hummert, 1990).

One of the reasons for this disparity in research teams and perceptions may be the

way in which different fields have defined what constitutes fairness and accuracy.

A major barrier to performance appraisal accuracy is the context within which this

process takes place – a social context with considerable interaction and mutual dependency.

Indeed research has found that interpersonal effect is related to rating errors (Cardy &

Dobbins, 1986; Robbins & DeNisi, 1994).

According to Dulewicz (1989, pp. 645), there is "... a basic human tendency to make

judgments about those one is working with, as well as about oneself." These judgments are

based on perception formed from interactions, personal experiences, cultures etc.

On this premise, performance appraisal is considered a communication process which

suggests a sending, processing and receiving of information within a particular structure. It

also raises the question of what could be done to increase the perception of fairness as

opposed to what constitute fairness.

x

Purpose of the Study

The intent of this study is to determine if there is a relationship between employee

personal information flow within the organization and its influence on performance appraisal.

To achieve these, four factors will be considered; how employees negotiate their identity

in the workplace, the meaning supervisors ascribe to these self conceptualization of

employees, the influence these employee self conceptualizations have on performance

appraisal, how can these influences be managed to reflect perceptions of fairness in

performance appraisal.

Although each of these factors has been investigated individually in pervious research

works, their interactive effects have not been examined collectively particularly as they affect

self shaping through interpersonal communication, and its presumed effects on performance

appraisal.

Thus, the aim of this research is to offer a view of the interactive role of these factors

and to help employees determine what elements of good self shaping will contribute to their

advancement in performance appraisal.

Problem Statement

In what way can employee self conceptualization in the work place be managed to

create a perception of fairness in performance appraisal?

Performance appraisals are measures of criteria of performance and are necessary for

almost all personnel related applications in an organization. Consequently, accurate

performance appraisal and feedback provide a basis for strategic employee development and

training by highlighting employee’ strengths and weakness (Goldstein, 1993).

xi

Consequently, the accuracy with which the performance appraisal information is

acquired is an issue of concern for both practitioners and researchers.

Because performance appraisals are based on subjective human judgments such as

raters indicating their response to performance appraisal items through the use of likert-type

scales ratings are susceptible to error. Some of the most common performance appraisal

errors are leniency, severity, central tendency, and halo (Cascio, 1998, Guion, 1998).

A major barrier to performance appraisal accuracy is the context within which the

process takes place – a social context within considerable interaction and mutual

dependency-. Correspondingly, research has shown that interpersonal affect such as

information gaining, building a context of understanding and establishing identity are related

to errors in performance appraisal evaluations (Cardy & Dobbins, 1986; Robbins & DeNisi,

1994; Tsui & Barry, 1986; DeNisi, & Paters, 1996).

Furthermore, raters will purposefully inflate or deflate employee rating for political or

personal reasons (Longnecker, 1987). Longnecker, (1987) interviewed company executives

to explore the reasoning behind performance appraisal rating inaccuracies. The most obvious

reason discovered was that executives simply are not concerned with performance appraisal

rating accuracy. In addition, the interview affirmed that raters will purposefully rate because

of political reasons such as (1) the reality that they have daily interpersonal interactions with

the ratee; (2) the permanence of the ratings are documented in the employees’ record, and (3)

the most cited political reason is that performance appraisals inevitably influence the ratees’

salary, career, and advancement (Longnecker, 1987).

Some executives reported that they have purposefully deflected performance ratings

for reasons such as: (1) to shock a difficult or poor performing employee back into being a

xii

high performer, (2) to remind ratees of who is in charge, and (3) to document poor

performance for termination purposes (Longnecker, 1987). Other executives have inflated

performances rating for reasons such as (1) maintain or increase subordinates performance,

(2) increase subordinates eligibility for rewards. (3) protect subordinates who have gone

through a difficult time in their lives, (4) to avoid confrontation with subordinates

(Longnecker, 1987).

Theoretical Framework

A theory is a way of observing, organizing and representing ideas, experiences, and

claims about the social world (Kaplan, 1964). Theories can be thought of as lenses used to

observe, frame, and explain a particular version of the social world (Deetz, 1992a).

This study is positioned within the theoretical perspective of Coordinated

Management of Meaning and recognized the epistemology of Social Constructivism

embedded in this theoretical perspective. Consistent with this philosophical stance the study

adopted a Predictive theory methodology and employed survey method during the processes

of data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) is a model for understanding the

relationship between meaning and action, and for how change in context-dependent and

socially constructed realities takes place (Cronen et al., 1982; Cronen, Pearce & Changsheng,

1989; Hannah & McAdam, 1991).

In their view, meaning is achieved through the process by which we collectively

make the events and objects of our social world. This is based on the assertion that persons-

in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the

xiii

worlds they create; consequently; the action and results of our worlds are based on the

meaning we gain from interactions.

Similarly, this study suggest that the outcomes of performance appraisal are not

something that employees just find or discover, instead, it is a reflection of the meaning

gained by their supervisors through their pass interactions in the work place. This assertion

further answers the questions posed by Pearce & Cronen the theorists (Griffin; 2006, pg 66):

What are we doing? Thus, what are persons-in-conversations responsible for? In the case of

this study employee engage in interactions to construct their identities. What are we making

together? How can we make better social worlds?.

The basis of this theory is that meaning which results in action occurs as created

through communication; via-a-via, it focuses on the things that we do to each other and the

things that we make with each other when we interact giving that meaning exist as they are

articulated and shaped in interaction, not prior (Griffin; 2006, pg 66).

From this perspective, meaning is a fundamentally social process that results from

participation in interactions and negotiating of identities. This is knowable in this study if we

reflect on performance appraisal as an important part of how employee become processing

agents who have the ability to exert some control over how information is interpreted, their

feeling about themselves, their contributions to the organization, their relationships with their

supervisors and co-workers, and their behaviors.

However, in my use of this theoretical framework, my focus is not to explicate the

processes and its effects on learning or knowing, but to better understand the deep

relationship between identity and influence.

xiv

Part of what makes this theory ideal for this study is that, unlike some objective

theorists, Pearce & Cronen don’t claim to have discovered principles of communication that

hold true for everyone in every situation. Instead the theory consists of sets of concepts and

model’s to help people enhance their understanding and act more effectively in a wide range

of communication situations (Griffin; 2006). Likewise this study only suggests that some

constructive interpersonal communication patterns are a means of achieving perception of

fairness in performance appraisal. An additional Idealness of this theory is the suggestion of

its proponents, that its ultimate test is not one of “truth” in the sense of representing

something accurately, but rather in the sense of beneficial consequence. Thus, the theory is

successful when it helps create a higher quality of life (Griffin; 2006). This study hopes to

contribute to creating a higher quality of life by helping employees recognize how

constructive interpersonal communication could help them influence their performance

appraisal.

Embedded in this theoretical framework is an epistemology of Social

Constructionism. According to this theory, the way human beings see the world is as a social

construction (Gergen, 1985; Hoffman, 1990). People live and understand their lives through

the socially constructed “realities” that they find meaningful, and in relation to which they

organize their experience. New meaning is constantly developed through interaction between

human beings. It exists and changes as part of the stories that people tell themselves and

others.

Consequently, Human beings build these constructions about the world, both as

individuals and as part of one or more groups, and act accordingly. A person’s understanding

of his or her reality has a great influence on his or her possibilities of action; a particular

xv

understanding with a certain area invites certain actions and renders other less likely (Gergen

& Kaye, 1992). Similarly, any action, remark, or incident is perceived according to the social

context in which it takes place. A certain message has a certain meaning according to this

context, and vice versa; the message is part of the creation of the context (Pearce, 1992).

In this view, realities such as interactions that affect performance appraisal are

viewed in terms of multiple, mental constructions held by individuals and groups. These

mental constructions are socially and experientially based and although local and specific in

nature may often be shared across the organization, for instance, it could be a stigmatization

of a particular employee as being lazy and taking advantage of people. This could have

arisen because of pervious stories of conquest she might have share with a peer at work.

Consequently, such mental constructions are not more or less 'true' in an absolute sense but

simply more or less informed through meaning assigned to them.

This study is framed as an intentional process of knowledge construction, which leads

to knowledge accumulation based on mental constructions appropriate for more informed

consensus construction across the group.

Hence, The act of inquiry begins with the issue of meaning assigned to employee

interpersonal relations and the resulting action on performance appraisal by supervisors and

unfolds through a 'dialectic' of iteration, analysis, critique, reiteration, and so on that

eventually leads to a shared consensus that links to the data and it is credible and relevant to

the situation.

xvi

Scope of the Study

The scope of the study refers to the breadth of communication behavior covered

within the study (West & Turner, 2004). This study is intended to examine the dynamics of

interpersonal communication between supervisors and subordinates.

The study will define the different communication patterns and show how they affect

the way supervisor’s rate subordinates during performance appraisal. The study will also

show how subordinates perceive the fairness of this action.

This study will view interpersonal communication and its effects on performance

appraisal from the point of view of supervisors and subordinates. Supervisors who have more

than three employees under them within the academic and administrative divisions at Bowie

State University will be the subject of analysis.

Significance of the Study

The value of this study is the insight it offers employees on the kind of stories they

tell through interpersonal communication that hinder or enhance their rating during

performance appraisal. It is hoped that with this knowledge employee will be able to shape

their own appraisal therefore increasing their perception of fairness.

Evidential, performance appraisal is inevitable and very crucial to personnel rating

and in helping organization to continuously maintain their competitive advantage through

human resource management. Though lots of research has been done on improving accuracy

in performance appraisal and maintain its perception of fairness, considerable emphasis has

been placed on the dynamics associated with interpersonal communication within the work

place.

xvii

Variable Definitions

Perception of Fairness: In its most general sense, it is an idea or a concept that

people hold to be in accordance with what they actually deserve or merit, or are in some

sense entitled to.

Interpersonal Communication: is the process of sending and receiving information

or communication with another person. Its purpose is to exchange symbols used to achieve

interpersonal goals

Performance Appraisal: a structured formal interaction between a subordinate and

supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or semi-annual), in

which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed, with a view to

identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and skills

development.

Rating: Is a means of classifying things in different category.

xviii

CHAPTER 11

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter served as the foundation for the development of this study. An overview

of the extensive historical research related to performance appraisal is presented. Application

of the concepts of organizational justice as a way to understand the dynamics of performance

appraisal and to aid in the evaluation of performance appraisal systems is addressed.

Introduction

Performance appraisal is one of the most widely researched human resource

management practices. Early research on performance appraisal examined technical

measurement issues and problems, and was followed by an onslaught of research related to

the impact of cognitive processes on performance appraisals. More recent research however,

has focused on some of the social and emotional factors related to performance appraisal

(Schraeder & Simpson; 2006). Within this stream of literature, considerable emphasis has

been placed on the dynamics associated between the supervisor and subordinate.

Research in social psychology however suggest that motive such as self-bolstering

and impression management are some of the antecedents that results when people engage in

interpersonal communication especial in the workplace (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol & Wyer,

1996; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999).

xix

Although these antecedents can relate to various dimensions, this study will focus

largely on its occurrence in relationship between subordinate and supervisor’s interpersonal

communication within an organization and its influence on performance appraisal.

In other to make some sense of and make comparisons among the vast array of

insights into the cognitive process of interpersonal communication in performance appraisal

in this literature review, I propose four main perspective (a) how employees negotiate their

identity in the workplace, (b) the meaning supervisors ascribe to these self conceptualization

by employees, (c) the influence employee self conceptualizations/ impression management

have on performance appraisal, (d) and how these influences can be managed to reflect

perceptions of fairness in performance appraisal.

The listing of these four areas follows a loose chronology of scholarly and

practitioner interest in interpersonal communication and performance appraisal. this section,

describes research in each of these areas, highlighting key assumptions and commitments of

the framework along with its finding, which provides supporting hypothesis for this study.

Performance Appraisal

For more than thirty years, performance appraisal research focused on measurement

and instrumentation issues. Psychologists Landy and Farr (1980) published an influential

article that changed the direction of research on performance appraisal. They agued that

enough research had been done on measurement and new research should attempt to better

understand cognitive processes that influence the rating process. They wrote, “It is time to

stop looking at the symptoms of bias in rating and begin examining its potential causes”

(Landy & Farr, 1980, p.34). Landy and Farr (1980) recommended to researches to pay

xx

attention to understanding how individual raters construct their reality to derive cognitive

maps of raters and the effects of feedback loops on ratings. Additionally, Feldman (1981)

argued that attention needs to be paid to the rating process, rather than exclusively focusing

on rating outcomes. From this perspective, researches seek to understand how information is

translated through cognitive processes into ratings with the goal of minimizing bias and error.

Some examples of process approaches are cognitive process of evaluation (DeNisi, Cafferty,

& Meglino, 1984), or judgment of performance (Iigen & Feldman, 1983).

As an example of how performance appraisal is conceptualized in this stream,

DeNisi, Cafferty & Meglino (1984) proposed a model of performance appraisal that is based

on social cognitive processes and reflects a view that performance appraisal is an exercise in

social perception and cognition embedded in an organizational context that requires both

formal and implicit judgment. The process begins with the primary input of job-relevant

behavior exhibited by the ratee. Given this behavior, the performance appraisal consist of six

step: (1) the rater observes the behavior, (2) the rater forms some cognitive representation of

the behavior, (3) the rater stores the cognitive representation in his or her mind, (4) the rater

must retrieve the stored information to use in formal evaluation, (5) the rater reconsidered

and integrates the retrieved information with other information available, and (6) the rater

assigns a formal evaluation to the ratee using a suitable rating instrument.

This literature is dominated by psychological approaches and focuses on topic such as

halo effects, and recent behavior bias. The halo effect has been identified as the most

pervasive error in conducting performance appraisals (Nathan & Lord, 1983).

Halo occurs when the rater assigns the ratee ratings based on a global assessment of the ratee,

rather than distinguished among levels of performance on different dimensions.

xxi

Other issues of interest are how prior expectations, prior knowledge, and expectation

of future performance influence the rating process.

This perspective is valuable because it conceptualize performance appraisal as a

process which recognize that interrelated actions occur over a period of time. As Grote

(1996) describes it, performance appraisal actually involves a number of events that usually

happen in a predictable and sequential fashion. These events managers reflecting on their

subordinates’ job performance, mangers and subordinate assembling and completing forms

and paperwork, conducting the performance appraisal interview, reviewing and signing

paperwork, and completing paperwork and filing it in employee’s personal files.

Critique of this stream of research is that most of the concepts and methods have

borrowed from social psychology, and many of them have been imported uncritically (Iigen

& Favero, 1985). While a social psychology framework could be useful to better understand

performance appraisal, questions that directly impact performance appraisal need to be

asked. For example, researches need to consider the continuous nature of interactions in

performance appraisal the independencies between raters and ratees, and the confounding of

behaviors and their consequences (Iigen & Favero, 1985).

Another critique of this stream of literature is that much of the knowledge gained

about cognitive processes of evaluation and rating were conducted in laboratory setting. Most

of these laborary experiments do and cannot duplicate the complexity of real life

relationships and settings in which performance appraisal is conducted.

Rating in real life is therefore conceptually and operationally different from rating

tasks presented in laboratory settings (Brtz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992). Many researchers are

calling for research that includes the varying political, social, and effective nature of rating

xxii

environments and how these cognitive processes are affected (Bretz, Milkovich &Read,

1992; Ferris & Judge, 1991).

Impression Management in Interpersonal Communication

Social psychologists have devoted much research attention to impression

management and the related topics of self-presentation and ingratiation (Jones, 1964; Leafy

& Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). Drawing on Schlenker (1980), impression

management may be defined as those behaviors individuals employ to protect their self-

images, influence the way they are perceived by significant others, or both.

Most impression management research has been conducted at the dyadic level and

has focused on the types of strategies employed (Buss, Gomes, Higgins, & Lauterbach,

1987), motivations behind the use of each strategy (Arkin, Appleman, & Berger, 1980),

individual characteristics of agents and targets related to the use of impression management

(Schlenker & Leafy, 1982a), and reactions of targets to impression management behaviors

(Schlenker & Leary, 1982b).

Organizational settings research on impression management has focused on

identifying impression management tactics or developing theoretical models of the

impression management process.

Although much has been accomplished within this stream of research, only a few

studies have empirically examined the relationship between impression management and

performance ratings (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990;

Wayne & Kacmar, 1991).

xxiii

To date, impression management studies in the performance appraisal area have

either been conducted in a laboratory setting or have employed cross-sectional designs with

established supervisor-subordinate dyads. Liden and Mitchell (1988) and Tedeschi and

Melburg (1984) argued that impression management can be used for either short-term or

long-term purposes. They also made a clear distinction between tactical impression

management behaviors, targeted at obtaining immediate gratification, and strategic

impression management behaviors, geared for influencing future outcomes.

Negotiating identity: Impression Management Strategies

A vast array of impression management strategies have been reported in the relevant

literature. Many of these focus on defensive tactics typically used in response to poor

performance, such as accounts, excuses, apologies, self-handicapping, learned helplessness,

self-deprecation, alcoholism, and drug abuse. In contrast to those strategies, assertive

impression management tactics are used by individuals to establish a particular identity for

an audience and are not merely a reaction to situational demands (Liden & Mitchell, 1988;

Tedeschi & Norman, 1985).

Self-presentation and other-enhancement are two main types of impression

management that provides the focus for this study. Self-presentation strategies, intended by

an individual, or agent, to make he/she more appealing to a target, are accomplished either

verbally or with nonverbal cues such as smiling, eye contact, and touching (DePaulo, 1992).

Other-enhancement refers to the favorable evaluation of, or agreement with, the target.

Flattery, favor-doing, and opinion conformity are common forms of other-enhancement that

have been shown to positively influence target individuals (Ralston & Elsass, 1989).

xxiv

The agent's objective in the use of all impression management strategies is to

favorably influence attributions made by the target. Because prior research has shown that

lower-status agents frequently use impression management in attempts to influence higher-

status targets (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992), subordinate impression

management targeted at supervisors represents an especially rich setting for research on

impression management.

Several studies have examined the effects of subordinate impression management

behavior on performance ratings. In particular, Wayne and Ferris (1990), Wayne and Kacmar

(1991), and Ferris and colleagues (1994) found support for the relationship between

subordinate impression management behavior and supervisor performance ratings. The study

found that Influence tactics, affect, and produces exchange quality in Supervisor-subordinate

interactions although these studies have provided useful results; they have a number of

limitations. Specifically, the prior studies have been conducted either in laboratory settings in

which students were used as subjects or in field settings with established supervisor-

subordinate dyads and cross-sectional designs. Thus, although significant relationships

between impression management and performance ratings have emerged, the causal

relationship is unclear; the intervening processes are not well understood.

Individuals can use many impression management behaviors to accomplish either

short- or long-term goals (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). For example, a subordinate may do a

favor for a supervisor in the morning because the former plans to ask for the afternoon off.

xxv

In contrast, the subordinate may do favors for the supervisor over time in the hope of

getting a good annual performance appraisal. To influence salient outcomes such as

performance ratings, compensation, and promotions, individuals would need to use

impression management behaviors strategically over time.

Cognitive Information Processing of Interpersonal Communication

Cognitive information processing approaches provide a theoretical framework for

explaining how supervisors translate their perceptions of subordinate impression

management into initial impressions, encode them into memory, and later retrieve and

decode them when rating the subordinates' performance (Schneider, 1991). Successful

subordinate impression management behaviors favorably alter supervisor attributions of a

subordinate, while Attributions in turn provide information the supervisor uses in

categorizing or recategorizing the subordinate (Schneider, 1991; Wood & Mitchell, 1981)

Subordinate impression management may have the most salient influence on

supervisors when the relationship between the two is developing. This time is when initial

categorization of the subordinate occurs (Feldman, 1986). In many cases, supervisors begin

to process information about a new subordinate before the individual's first day on the job, or

even before interviewing the prospective employee.

It has been found that interviewers, who are often the applicants' future supervisors,

form impressions of applicants before interviews on the basis of preemployment information,

such as resumes (Phillips & Dipboye, 1989).

Thus, the categorization of information based on schemata may occur prior to an

interview (Dipboye, 1989). However, even at this early stage, applicants may use impression

xxvi

management to manipulate the information presented in their resumes and cover letters

announcing job candidacy (Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Impression management during actual

interviews may further influence the interviewers' information processing, either positively

(Fletcher, 1989; Gilmore & Ferris, 1989) or negatively (Baron, 1989).

Although initial impressions may be formed before the first day a supervisor and

subordinate work together, we suspect that in most cases, supervisors continue to engage in a

controlled processing mode when observing new subordinates' behavior on the job for the

first time (Feldman, 1986). In most cases, assimilation of a new subordinate should be

sufficiently unique to trigger a controlled categorization process. Supervisors who have

categorized a new subordinate as, for example, lazy may interpret the subordinate's use of

impression management behaviors (such as doing favors) as schema-inconsistent

information. This interpretation may in turn trigger an episode of controlled information

processing (Fiske, Neuberg, Beattie, & Milberg, 1987). Using this new positive information,

the supervisor may revise the initial categorization of the subordinate.

Because such controlled processing involves making attributions for the new

subordinates' behavior (Feldman, 1986), the supervisors become vulnerable to subordinate

impression management strategies designed to manipulate their attributions. For example, in

part on the basis of the subordinates' impression management behavior, the supervisors may

categorize the new employees as friendly, hard-working, and similar to themselves. This

categorization may compare favorably with the supervisors' prototype of ideal subordinate

behaviors.

xxvii

A match between prototype and processed information based on the subordinates'

impression management may positively influence the task assignments, feedback, resources,

and support the supervisors provide to the subordinates. This favorable treatment may cause

the subordinates' actual performance to be higher than that of others, and rating biases may

also occur (Feldman, 1986).

Supervisor-Focused Impression Management

Greenwald (1980) argued that people strive to affirm their self-concepts. They may

accomplish this goal through the use of impression management, attempting to control or

manage the impressions that other people form so that those impressions are consistent with

their desired self-images (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Often exerting such control translates

into an attempt to behave in a way that will result in liking by a target. Research evidence

shows that other-enhancement is often effective in provoking a favorable target impression.

Noted, that "people find it hard not to like those who think highly of them".

Since this studies focus on subordinates' use of impression management in attempts to

influence their immediate superiors, I refer to other-enhancement tactics as supervisor-

focused impression management strategies. These include such strategies as flattery, which

involves a subordinate's communicating feelings of liking and admiration to a supervisor, and

doing favors for the supervisor. A supervisor who feels liked and admired by a subordinate

will be more attracted to that subordinate.

xxviii

In fact, a target's attraction to and liking of an agent has been the dependent variable

in the majority of the social psychology experiments on impression management. In nearly

all those studies, researchers found agent use of flattery and favors to be related to target

affect for and attraction to the agent (Schlenker, 1980; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).

The handful of studies specifically designed to assess the use of other-enhancement in

organizational situations has revealed similar results. For example, subordinate use of

supervisor-focused impression management has been found to be related to supervisors'

attraction to subordinates (Kipnis & Vanderveer, 1971) and liking of the subordinates

(Wayne & Ferris, 1990).

In an effort to maintain positive self-images, individuals may be especially attentive

to positive things that are said about them and to favors done for them (cf. Markus, 1980).

According to self-verification theory, people tend to be attracted to and to identify with those

who confirm the perceptions they have of themselves (Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler,

1992). Individuals tend to perceive themselves as similar to those who display attractive

behaviors, such as giving compliments (Lewicki, 1983). It follows that supervisors will see

themselves as being more similar to subordinates who compliment them and do favors for

them than to subordinates who do not engage in these behaviors.

Self-Focused Impression Management

There are many assertive self-presentation strategies, including false modesty,

boasting, and a host of nonverbal behaviors such as smiling, making eye contact, and

touching (Cialdini, 1989; Ralston & Elsass, 1989; Schlenker, 1980).

xxix

Self-presentation is viewed in terms of two strategies, self-enhancement and

exemplification, or acting as an exemplar. We refer to these strategies as self-focused

impression management. With these strategies, a subordinate attempt to convey the

impression that he or she is a friendly, hard-working, model employee.

A subordinate's goal with these self-focused strategies is to create an image that a

supervisor will perceive favorably. An agent must be willing to assume risk when using self-

focused strategies because the influence attempt will backfire if the target interprets the self-

presentation as insincere (Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Subordinates who are consumed by

presenting themselves favorably may fail to devote enough effort to job duties (Baumeister,

1989), which results in negative supervisor reactions. As Cialdini and DeNicholas (1989)

wrote, "If there is an overarching lesson to be learned from the large body of work on

impression management, it is that “favorable self-presentation is a tricky business".

Research results indicate that agents often do not succeed in the use of self-focused

strategies, as is evidenced by neutral (Wayne & Ferris, 1990) or negative (Powers & Zuroff,

1988) target reactions. For example, in Powers and Zuroff's (1988) research, agents who used

self-focused impression management were less liked than were individuals who did not use

impression management. Given the extreme skill that appears to be needed in the use of self-

focused impression management tactics, we expect that most subordinates will not succeed in

conveying a positive image with such tactics.

A very consistent finding in the social psychology and organizational literatures is the

strong association between perceived similarity and liking. It follows that if supervisors do

not like subordinates who promote themselves, the supervisors will not perceive themselves

as similar to the self-promoting subordinates.

xxx

Psychologically healthy individuals tend not to identify with or perceive themselves

as similar to those they consider undesirable (cf. Cialdini & DeNicholas, 1989; Swann et al.,

1992).

Hypothesis l: Interpersonal communication will serve as a significant predictor of favorable performance appraisal from supervisors.

Null Hypothesis 1: Interpersonal communication will not serve as a significant predictor of favorable performance appraisal from supervisors.

Effects of Interpersonal Communication and Ratings of Subordinate Performance

Zajonc (1980) argued for the primacy of affect, suggesting that it dominates

interactions between people. An especially important interpersonal interaction in

organizations is that between subordinate and supervisor. Empirical support has been found

for Liden and Mitchell's (1988) proposition that affect plays a critical role in the type of

exchange that develops between supervisor and subordinate (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell,

1993; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). One implication of the importance of affect in subordinate-

supervisor interactions is that it may cause bias in a supervisor's treatment (Feldman, 1986)

and evaluation of subordinates.

Responding to calls by Landy and Farr (1980) and Mitchell (1983) for research on the

social context of performance ratings, researchers have conducted studies in which they

found social factors to be related to performance ratings. Specifically, positive interpersonal

communication by subordinate has been shown to be positively related to supervisory

performance ratings (Judge & Ferris, 1993; Tsui & Barry, 1986; Wayne & Ferris, 1990).

xxxi

These studies are also important because they were among the first to integrate

cognitive information processing with the social context of performance rating (cf.

Schneider, 1991). However, the research reported in each of these studies was either

conducted in a laboratory or in the field, with a cross-sectional design. Thus, common

method variance is a concern because supervisors assessed their liking for and the

performance of the subordinates at the same time. And even if common method variance did

not influence the results, it is not known if positive interpersonal communication at one time;

influences ratings made later.

Although the research that has appeared on the association between interpersonal

communication which results in liking and performance appraisal has been cross-sectional,

theory supports the argument that interpersonal communication will have an enduring effect

that will influence later performance ratings. French and Raven (1959) described being liked

as "referent power" that provides the liked individual with influence. Tedeschi and Melburg

(1984) noted that "on a long term basis there are many potential gains for the liked person",

which includes better communication, trust, and ability to influence. Specifically, liking may

influence supervisors' observation and storage of information over time as well as their recall

at the time they actually rate a subordinate's performance (DeNisi & Williams, 1988).

Supervisory liking of a subordinate may reflect job behaviors associated with good

job performance, such as the subordinate's friendliness toward customers and working well

with other employees (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). However, liking may also mask

performance deficiencies and lead to biased performance ratings.

xxxii

At least three biases resulting from liking or disliking a subordinate may influence a

supervisor's performance ratings. First, the supervisor may provide liked subordinates with

more resources and support than disliked subordinates, which may influence actual

performance (Feldman, 1986). Second, supervisors may be selectively attentive to

subordinates' work behaviors over time, noticing and storing information concerning the

positive work behaviors of liked subordinates and the negative work behaviors of disliked

subordinates. Finally, when actually rating subordinates, supervisors will tend to recall the

positive work behaviors of liked subordinates and the negative work behaviors of disliked

subordinates.

Perceived Fairness in Performance Appraisal

The study of justice or fairness has been a topic of philosophical interest that extends

back at least as far as Plato and Socrates (Ryan, 1993). Colloquially, the term justice is used

to connote “oughtness” or “righteousness.” Under the purview of ethics, an act can be

defined as just through comparison with a prevailing philosophical system. Unfortunately,

often there is no agreement on what that philosophical system should be.

In research in the organizational sciences, justice is considered to be socially

constructed. That is, an act is defined as just if most individuals perceive it to be so on the

basis of empirical research (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Thus, “what is fair” is derived

from past research linking objective facets of decision making to subjective perceptions of

fairness.

In particular, justice in organizational settings can be described as focusing on the

antecedents and consequences of two types of subjective perceptions: (a) the fairness of

outcome distributions or allocations and (b) the fairness of the procedures used to determine

xxxiii

outcome distributions or allocations. These forms of justice are typically referred to as

distributive justice (Adams, 1965; Leventhal, 1976) and procedural justice ( Leventhal,

Karuza, & Fry, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975).

Efforts to explain the impact of justice on effective organizational functioning have

come under the rubric of organizational justice research (Greenberg, 1987, 1990). Greenberg

(1990) described organizational justice as a literature “grown around attempts to describe and

explain the role of fairness as a consideration in the workplace”. This literature includes both

field and laboratory research, and organizational justice has been among the most frequently

researched topics in industrial–organizational psychology, human resource management, and

organizational behavior over the last decade (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997).

As interest in organizational justice has proliferated, so too have the theoretical

approaches used to study it, particularly in relation to procedural justice. These approaches

each propose a different way of conceptualizing justice, from the provision of process control

(Thibaut & Walker, 1975) to a focus on consistency (Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal et al., 1980)

and an examination of interpersonal treatment (Bies & Moag, 1986). In addition, a large

number of studies have sought to link justice perceptions to a variety of organizational

outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, withdrawal, and

organizational citizenship behavior.

Additional evidence suggests, however, that beliefs about fair performance

evaluations may also be based on the procedures by which the evaluations are determined

apart from the ratings received. However, Procedural justice research has focused largely on

individuals’ reactions to formal policies and procedures. More recently, a subset of

procedural justice has emerged called interactional justice (Folger & Bies, 1989; Greenberg,

xxxiv

1993; Tyler & Bies, 1990), which refers to the interpersonal side of decision making,

specifically to the fairness of the decision maker's behavior in the process of decision

making. Decision makers behave in an interactionally fair manner when they treat those

affected by the decision properly and enact the decision policy or procedure properly (Folger

& Bies, 1989; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Table 1 shows the structural and social determinant of

procedural and distributive justice category.

Proper interpersonal treatment is defined as (a) being truthful in communication and

treating people with courtesy and (b) showing respect. Proper enactment of procedures is

defined by five behaviors: (a) adequate consideration of the employee's input, (b) suppression

of personal biases, (c) consistent application of decision-making criteria (d) timely feedback,

and (e) justification for the decision. These interactional factors play an important role in

affecting employees’ perceptions of fairness, acceptance of decisions, and organizational

attitudes (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Schaubroeck, May, & Brown, 1994).

Procedural Distributive Justice Justice

StructurallyDetermined

SystemicConcerns about proceduresto assign raters, set criteria,gather information and seekappeals

ConfiguralConcerns about the normsthat lead to ratings and the .

SociallyDetermined

InformationalConcerns about the wayraters communicate withtheir ratees.

InterpersonalConcerns about thetreatment that ratees receivefrom their raters.

Table 1: Greenberg's (1993) Taxonomy of Justice Perceptions Applied to PerformanceAppraisal (Thurston, 2001)

xxxv

The purpose of this review is to examine the factors that might affect the extent to

which subordinates and supervisors engage in interactionally fair behavior: i.e. the

communication style of their subordinates. To achieve this, we considered what Greenberg

(1993) described as the informational component of interactional justice, which pertains to

the exchange of information (e.g., providing justification). Specifically, two aspects of

interactional justice —consideration and justification— that are repeatedly mentioned as

critical for perceptions of fairness. Consideration refers to the extent to which the decision

maker acknowledges and considers the views and concerns of others affected by the decision

(Tyler, 1987). Justification refers to the extent to which an adequate explanation or account

for the decision is provided (Shapiro, 1993).

Because information exchange is a two-way process, it is possible that the

subordinate's communication style can influence the extent to which the manager engages in

these behaviors. Therefore, the study proposes that an assertive communication style on the

part of the employee will evoke greater interactionally fair behavior on the part of the

manager.

Hypothesis 2: Perception of interpersonal communication from supervisors will correlate with employee perception of fairness of performance appraisal.

Null Hypothesis 2: Perception of interpersonal communication from supervisors will not correlate with employee perception of fairness of performance appraisal.

Because of this diversity in theoretical approach and construct focus, organizational

justice is a field in need of integration. There have been a number of narrative reviews that

have sought to achieve such integration (e.g., Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Folger &

Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg, 1987, 1990).

xxxvi

Conclusion

In summary, interpersonal communication and performance appraisal research,

though plentiful, requires conceptual redirection. Viewing performance appraisal as a

practice of negotiation illustrate a need for understanding how performance appraisal is

shaped by context, interaction and participation; using Coordinated Management of Meaning

as a theoretical frame, can respond to these need.

The hypothesis in this study are intended to provide a critical filter necessary to

extend knowledge on impression management by demonstrating that a subordinate’s use of

impression management early in the relationship with a supervisor induces liking and

perceptions of similarity, which in turn influence performance rating later and also encourage

a perception of fairness.

xxxvii

CHAPTER 111

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The methodology of this study is designed to investigate the proposition that a

subordinate’s communication style can affect his/her supervisor’s decision making during

performance appraisal and can affect the subordinate’s perception of fairness of the decision.

This proposition is based on the concept of interactional fairness and aims to promote an

understanding and implication of properly managed interpersonal communication within

organizational setup.

Though subordinate’s perception is important in determining the influence of

interpersonal communication in performance appraisal, this study will only examine the

supervisors perception of what will be described throughout this investigation. This chapter

describes the details of the study research method; its instrumentation and the method of

sampling, bearing in mind the researchers’ ontological or epistemological views.

Research Method

There are several methods used when conducting communication research. Usually

it’s up to the researcher to identify a method best suited to the study, which will produce

reliable and validity results of the study. There are four types of research methods namely

experimental, surveys, observation and existing Data. These methods each have their

xxxviii

advantages and disadvantages, however there all allow researchers to know what evidences

to look for and directs them on how to obtain the evidence they need (Frey, Boton, Kreps,

2000).

This study finds the survey method most appropriate for gathering its data in the hope

of solving a “real world” communication problem. Survey research is the method of

gathering data from respondents thought to be representative of some population, using an

instrument composed of closed structured or open-ended items (questions).

According to Babbie (2005) survey research is probably the best method available in

research which is interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to

observe directly.

This is perhaps the dominant form of data collection in the social sciences, providing

for efficient collection of data over broad populations, amenable to administration in person,

by telephone, and over the Internet. Some forms of survey research by telephone or the

Internet may be completely automated.

Critics of survey research methodology hold it to be a method which artificially

forces respondents to formulate opinions, masking the complexity of conflicting views and

unconscious biases within each respondent, and critics note that in many arenas (e.g., race

relations) survey items poorly predict actual behavior (Wimmer & Dominick, 1987).

Some notable advantages of Survey research are 1) It Can collect a lot of data with

relatively small expense, 2) Data comes from people in a “real world” situation which is

often a necessary first step before undertaking more elaborate research, 3) questionnaires

which is the instrument of data collection are easy to administer and they can determine the

value and relations of variables and constructs, 4) surveys can also be used to predict

xxxix

behavior. Survey is not a perfect methodology, its technique also possesses several

disadvantages such as 1) independent variables cannot be manipulated as in laboratory

experiments. This implies that without control of independent variable variation, the

researcher cannot be certain whether the relation between independent and dependent

variables are causal or non-causal 2) wordings of questions and placement of items within

questionnaires can have biasing effects on survey results 3) Usually not possible to study in

depth and 4) Findings frequently lack internal and external validity (Wimmer & Dominick,

1987).

Survey research method consists of two types of data collection instruments namely

questionnaires and interview. A questionnaire (also known as self-administered survey) is a

type of statistical survey handed out in paper form usually to a specific demographic to

gather information in order to provide better service or goods, while interviews are

exchanges in which people provide information orally.

Both types of survey are self report measures that ask respondent to provide information

about their own or others belief, attitudes and behavior on a particular topic/issue (Newsted,

Huff & Munron, 1998).

Questionnaires and interview are both very popular tools in communication research;

however this study will use questionnaires to collect its data. Questionnaires have advantages

over other types of surveys in that they are cheap, do not require as much effort from the

questioner as verbal or telephone surveys, and often have standardized answers that make it

simple to compile data. However, such standardized answers may frustrate users who do not

find options best suited to their opinions. Questionnaires are also sharply limited by the fact

xl

that respondents must be able to read the questions and respond to them. Hence, for some

demographic groups conducting a survey by questionnaire may not be practical.

An important purpose for using a survey research method is to be able to generalize

from a sample to a population, so that inference can be made about some characteristics,

attitude, or the behavior of the population (Babbie; 2005). Consequently, this method allows

hypothesis to be tested as the variables are measured by asking people questions. The

answers to the questions are than analyzed to examine the relationship among the different

variables. The variables in this study are performance appraisal, interpersonal communication

and perception of fairness. In analyzing these variables using the survey research method, the

views of the sampled population are revealed.

Instrumentation

Instruments are formal measurement tools used to gather data concerning research

variables. In social research, variables are often operationalized as a means of determining its

measurement values when researchers ask questions as a way of getting data for analysis and

interpretation (Babbie; 2005).

In survey research researchers frame and ask questions that serve as instruments of

operationalizations of variables, in most cases questionnaires and in-depth interviews are

used. This study uses a self administered questionnaire which will be completed by

respondents in or outside the presences of the researcher as its instruments designed

specifically to elicit information regarding the study variables (interpersonal communication,

performance appraisal & perception of fairness) that will be useful for analysis.

xli

In putting together the questionnaire to measure the dependent and independent

variables in these study two types of question could be formulated namely open – ended and

closed- ended questions. Open-ended questions ask the respondent to provide his/her own

answers, for example respondent are provided with space to experiences their opinion about

an issues. In most cases qualitative interviewing relies on this method of questioning. Though

it’s advantageous in the senses that it gives respondent greater freedom of expression, no bias

due to limited response range and respondent can qualify their answers, it is equally

disadvantageous because it is time consuming to code and researchers/ interviewers may

misinterpret and therefore misclassify a response.

Close-ended question ask respondent to select an answer from among a list provided

by the researcher. They are more popular in survey research because they provide a greater

uniformity of responses, are easy to answer and are more easily processed than open-ended

questions. However they are also disadvantageous in that they can draw misleading

conclusions because of limited range of options (Babbie; 2005, Frey, Boton, Kreps, 2000).

This study will use closed ended questions through out the questionnaires since its

less time consuming in terms of coding the data and most importantly its easier for researcher

to compare end results.

In assembling the questionnaires, the researcher will be conscious of clarity and

unambiguousness of questions, to for store possibilities of misunderstanding. The

questionnaire will avoid double-barreled question (questions with multiple parts) which are

capable of rendering some question void. Questions will be relevant to the variables in

questions; questions will avoid biased items and terms and would avoid negative items.

xlii

The questionnaire requires the respondents to indicate on a 5-point likert-type scale

with regards to particular statements bearing attributes of the various variables. The likert-

type scale was created by a renounced psychologist named Rensis Likert in 1932, it was

designed to measures the extend to which a person believes a particular statement. frey,

Botan and Kreps (2000) opined that likert scales are designed to measure the extents to

which a person believes a particular response – agree or disagree – to gauge the respondents

attitude towards a statement by choosing one category. The range employed in likert-type

scales often go from one extreme to the next with a neutral response in the middle.

A section of both the supervisor and subordinates questionnaire asked questions on

demographics, while another section from the supervisor’s questionnaire asked questions on

skill assessment and the employee questionnaires on perceptions about raters and appraisal

process. Please refer to appendix A for samples of the question.

Sample and Sampling Method

The main goal of a scientific research is to describe the nature of a population. This

can be achieved through the investigation of an entire class or group however, the chance of

investigating an entire population is remote or non existent due to time and resources

constrain. The usual process in social science is to select a sample from the population.

A sample is a subset of the population that is representative of the entire population

(Wimmer & Dominick, 1987).

The populations studied in this research are supervisors and subordinates within

Bowie State University; the population consists of faculty and staff who also double as

supervisors at various division of the institution.

xliii

There are two types of sampling methods, namely the probability and nonprobability

sampling. Probability sampling refers to sample selected in accords with probability theory,

typically involving some random selection mechanism (Babbie; 2005).

According to Babbie (2005) “…the key to generalization from a sample to a larger

population is probability sampling, which involves the important idea of random sampling.”

Random sampling involves selecting a sample in such a way that each person in the

population of interest has an equal chance of begin selected. These eliminate the chance of

researchers being biased during the selection process due to their opinions or desires within

the research (Frey, Boton & Kreps, 2000).

Due to the amount of time available for the research it was impossible to directly

observe the communication exchange within the organization, therefore the survey research

method was very helpful in allowing the researcher collect data that can’t be directly

observed.

There are various techniques or design in random sampling such as simple random

sampling, systematic sampling, stratified sampling and cluster sampling. These techniques

allow little rooms for bias and have equal changes of picking any participant.

However, simple random sampling was used for this study. To obtain the sample size

the undergraduate catalog of Bowie State University was used, were all the names of faculty,

administrative units, academic departments and Administrative officers were listed.

Consecutive Numbers were assigned to the people in such a way that each number has an

equal chance of being chosen. For the subordinates of the administrative units whom did not

have a ready list four people were randomly pick from each unit. Numbers were chosen until

the desired sample size was obtained.

xliv

Surveys were distributed to eligible personnel through each department’s inter-office

mail. Each employee whom was pre-selected as participate in the research received a

questionnaire delivered to their work station. Appendix 1 shows the questionnaire for the

subordinates and supervisor.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability refers to the quality of measurement method that suggests the same data

would be collected each time in repeated observations of the same phenomenon, thus;

consistency in result found in a research study. Validity describes a measure that accurately

reflects the concept it is intended to measure (Babbie; 2005).

The validity and reliability of this study are discussed as it relates to the self designed

questionnaire that was administered to the proposed sample size.

According to Frey et.d (2000) for a measurement to be considered valid, it must first

exhibit some form of reliability. The reliability of a measurement shows its dependability

given that it has a higher propensity to yield similar outcome when applied to different

population, context and time period. Measurement validity examines the ability of a

measurement design to closely relate to the observable characteristics of the research

concepts being investigated. Thus the study questionnaire was designed to measure

interpersonal communication and its effects on performance appraisal and perception of

fairness of employees at Bowie State University.

Though the ultimate validity of a measure can never be proven, we may agree to its

relative validity based on face, criterion-related, content, construct, internal validly and

external validity. Content validity refers to the degree to which a measure covers the range

xlv

of meaning included within a concept. The self designed instrument replicate content validity

because the variables investigated are fully supported with their attributes. For instances

the study examines interpersonal relations, performance appraisal and performance of

fairness, consequently items on the instrument were relational to these various variables.

Frey et. (2000) refers to predictive validity as how well a measurement forecast or

predicts an outcome. The instrument created was used to measure how interpersonal

communication affects employee in the work place in two aspects: performance appraisal and

perception of fairness. Since it was assumed that interpersonal communication has a direct

effect on how supervisors rate subordinate performance, was that the instrument is valid if

results collected relates to higher performance appraisal and increased perception of fairness.

Babbie (2005) refers to face validity as a quality of an indicator that makes it seem a

reasonable measure of some variable. Thus the test should look like it is related to their

purpose because this promotes public acceptance of testing and it motivates participants to do

their best. The purpose of face validity is to allow researchers to ensure that the instrument

reflects the topic studied. Each question within the instrument deals with each of the

variables as it relates to topic.

There are three techniques used in testing the reliability of a measurement instrument

such as the questionnaire used in this study. The techniques are multi-administration, single

administration and interobserver reliability.

A split-half reliability was be used to seek the reliability of the instrument. With this

assessment, the respondent’s answer on the instrument will be spited into two parts. The

answers are than compared and if there is at least 70% agreement between the two parts, then

xlvi

the instrument is reliable. The method that will be used to slit the instrument in half will be to

slit between the odd and even items so as to main balance between questions.

Statistical Measure of Analysis

The statistical measure of analysis enables researchers to take results and come to a

general conclusion based on descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. While descriptive

statistics is used to construct simple descriptions about the characteristics of a set of

quantitative data, inferential statistics aims to estimate the characteristics of the population

gathered from the data in a sample and find the significant difference between groups and

significant statistical relationship between different variables (Frey, Boton & Kreps, 2000).

A measurement scale such as nominal and ordinal are used to assign levels and

degrees of variables to hypothesis which can be arranged hierarchically. Frey .et (2000)

describes nominal measurement as:

… variables differentiated on the basis of the type of category; hence, nominal measurement scales classify a variable into different categories. The term “nominal” is derived from the Latin Nomen, meaning “name”, and the categories of the nominal scale may be named by words (such as male and female, or yes and no) or by numbers (such as phone numbers, or license plate numbers of cars). (p. 85).

Nominal measurement, therefore have no order (from highest to lowest) but simply

represents different categories. On the contrary, ordinal measurements are ordered and

represent hierarchical rating such as first, second and third, or highest, middle, lowest.

For the purpose of this study, ordinal measurement was used. The Statistical package

for Social Sciences (SPSS) software will be used to analyze the data obtained from

xlvii

respondents of the survey. From the response, frequency, bivariate and cross tabulations will

be performed.

The survey questionnaire will be prepared based on the two hypotheses

proposed in chapter two.

According to Infante, Rancer and Womack (1997), research hypothesis represents the

prediction of the result of an experiment. Accordingly, the predication of results in this study

is strongly influenced by employee interpersonal communication skill and their supervisor’s

perception of them.

In the first hypothesis, interpersonal communication and its perception by the

supervisor are the independent variables. Interpersonal communication has an operational

definition that includes personality traits, this involves a subordinate's communicating

feelings of liking and admiration to a supervisor, and doing favors for the supervisor. While

perception as it relates to supervisors is operationalized to mean a supervisors sensitivity and

opinion of his employee’s contacts with himself and others within the work place. The

dependable variable in hypothesis one is favorable performance appraisal, which implies

effective interpersonal communication on the part of the subordinate.

The second hypothesis has interpersonal communication and perception of fairness as

its Independable variables and has performance appraisal as its dependent variable. This

hypothesis is a speculation that a change in knowledge use (supervisor or subordinate’s self

focused interpersonal communication) will cause a change in perception of fairness, hence

increasing the level of acceptability of the appraisal. Since, every employee has an equally

opportunity of generating effective or ineffective interpersonal communication that will

influences their performance appraisal.

xlviii

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Introduction

The focus of the study was to examine how supervisor’s rate subordinates during

performance appraisal based on their perception of subordinates’ interpersonal

communication, and to measure subordinates perception of fairness of their performance

appraisal.

The research was based on the assumption that understanding the perception people

get from interpersonal communication with others, can lead to people been able to create

identities that is most seducing to positive responses from the interacting parties. In the

context of this study, this assumption suggest that supervisors are more likely to positively

rate subordinates whom they perceive to have good interpersonal skills and form an aura of

liking for them. While subordinates, are more likely to accept and consider their appraisal

report fair if they view their interpersonal treatment from their supervisors as positive. A

consistent factor in this assumption is interpersonal communication.

The purpose the study was to explore evidence that will support the hypothesis.

Statistical analysis of the research will be presented in this chapter, and the finding of the

study will be discussed. The research shows that interpersonal communication is significantly

related to employee perception of fairness of performance appraisal and also that supervisor’s

xlix

rating of their subordinates is largely influenced by their perception of employee’s

interpersonal communication.

In gathering the data for the study, one hundred and fifty questionnaires were

distributed to staff and faculties in Bowie State University of which eighty- five were given

to subordinates made of academic faculties, administrative and support staffs, the remaining

sixty-four were distributed to supervisors made up of academic and administrative heads.

Ninety-two percent of the survey made up of sixty supervisors and eighty- two subordinates

were completed and returned. Cluster sampling method was used in selecting the respondents

in the study, ensuring that every member of the population has an equal chance of being

selected.

Demographic Descriptions

The respondents’ demographic descriptions are illustrated in table 1 through 9, this

includes both the supervisors and subordinates. Statistics shows that majority of the

supervisors that responded were male at 57.4%, while more female responded in the

subordinates category at 61.0%. Race shows that in both the supervisor and subordinates

surveys more African Americans responded followed other races not mention in the category

than the Caucasian. More supervisors reported rating between six to ten people, most which

were administrative heads of divisions and have been doing their jobs for between six to ten

years. In the subordinate category more employees have worked between one to five years

and were mostly administrative staffs.

l

Supervisor’s Demographics

Figure 1

Gender of Respondents

FEMALEMALE

Per

cent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Male: 57.4%

Female: 41.0%

li

Figure 2

Figure

OthersCaucasianAfrican American

Per

cent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Race of Respondents

African American: 54.1%

Caucasian: 4.3%

Others: 39.3%

lii

Figure 3

MORE1611-156-101-5

Per

cent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Number of People Respondents Supervise

1 -5: 23.0%

6 -10: 52.5%

11 – 15: 9.8%

More than 16: 13.1%

liii

Figure 4

Administrative HeadAcademic DeanAcademic Head Of Dept.

Per

cent

60

40

20

0

Kind of Supervisor

Academic Head of Department: 26.2%

Academic Dean: 9.8%

Administrative Head: 62.3%

liv

Figure 5

more1611 - 156 - 101-5

Per

cent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Respondents Years of Supervising

1 – 5: 31.1%

6 -10: 54.1%

11 – 15: 9.8%

Over 16: 3.3%

lv

Figure 6

Subordinate’s Demographics

Female 61.0%Male 39.0 %

Respondents Gender

lvi

Figure 7

OTHER 12.2%Caucasian 12.2 % African American 75.6%

Race of Respondents

Figure 8

lvii

Over 16 = 14.6%11-15 = 9.8%6-10 = 8.5%1- 5 = 67.1%

Respondents Length of Employment

Figure 9

lviii

Administrative = 57.3%Academic = 42.7%

Respondents Type of Employment

Findings

Hypothesis 1

lix

H1: Interpersonal communication will serve as a significant predictor of favorable performance appraisal from supervisors.

Null Hypothesis 1: Interpersonal communication will not serve as a significant predictor of favorable performance appraisal from supervisors.

The expectation of the study with regards to hypothesis 1 recognizes the importance

of the role of affects in human judgment. Evidence was also accumulated to the effect that

performance evaluations are influenced by a host of affective, motivational and interpersonal

factors. The findings in support of this hypothesis were based upon the respondents’ reaction

to statements concerning interactions between supervisors and subordinates in the work place

as it relates to performance appraisal.

Three variables were measured using the Non parametric Chi-square statistic

analysis. Two independent variables namely interpersonal communication and supervisor’s

perception, and one dependent variable performance appraisal were used for the test.

The test revealed that H1 was supported. The findings suggest that there is a

significant relationship between the variables as table 2 shows. The significance level of the

relationship between the three variables is .001. In statistical analysis, Chi-Square values that

are less than .05 indicate that there is a significant relationship between the variables.

Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant relationship between employee

interpersonal communications, supervisor’s perception and its effect on performance

appraisal. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted and the null rejected. The findings are

illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2

Chi-Square Test

lx

Questions:

13) Positive communication is when subordinates use pleasant voice tone and choice of words when talking to me.

18) I'm likely to rate employee positively for high compatibility with me.

Thus: 13 = IV (Independent Variable) = Interpersonal Communication 18 = DV (Dependable Variable) = Performance Appraisal

X2 = 8.408df = 3P = < .038

Questions:

10) Through interpersonal comm. employee create their identity.

18) I'm likely to rate employee positively for high compatibility with me.

Thus: 10 = IV (Independent Variable) = Perception 18 = DV (Dependable Variable) = Performance Appraisal

X2 = 31.398df = 9P = .001

Hypothesis 2

H1: Perception of interpersonal treatment from supervisors will correlate with employee perception of fairness of performance appraisal.

lxi

Null Hypothesis 2: Perception of interpersonal communication from supervisors will not correlate with employee perception of fairness of performance appraisal.

In measuring hypothesis 2, the survey responds collected from the subordinates was

used. The variables were perception of fairness of performance appraisal (dependent

variable) and interpersonal communication (independent variable). Pearson Correlation was

use to test the variables.

Correlation was found to be significant at the .01 level with r = .731 as shown in table

3.

Table 3

Pearson Correlation Test

lxii

Correlations

6) My rater explains to

me the standard used for

evaluation

5) My rater understands the

requirements of my work

6) My rater explains to me the standard used for evaluation

Pearson Correlation 1 .731(**)Sig. (1-tailed) .000N 82 82

5) My rater understands the requirements of my work

Pearson Correlation .731(**) 1Sig. (1-tailed) .000

N 82 82

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

CHAPTER V

lxiii

INTERPRETATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The proposed hypothesis in the study was tested and the findings were reported in the

preceding chapter. The assumption made in the study was looked at closely, and data was

collected in search of evidence that will result to the acceptance of the hypotheses. On

conducting a significant test with chi-Square and Pearson correlation, it was concluded that

hypothesis- 1 was supported, meaning that there is a significant relationship between

interpersonal communication, supervisors perception and performance appraisal. It was also

concluded that hypothesis -2 was supported, implying that a significant relationship exist

between perception of fairness in performance appraisal correlates with interpersonal

communication.

Therefore, the predications made at the beginning of the study were supported. This

infers that communication that takes place between people in the work place generates

affective reactions which in most cases are often involuntary and effortless, as well as

irrevocable because of their subjective validity. The study suggests an acknowledgement that

affects/perception dominates social interaction thus “if I decide in favor of Mr. X is no more

than “I liked Mr. X” , the relevance’s of interpersonal communication becomes immediately

apparent and the need to understand and use it to ones advantage becomes a challenge.

A look at the frequencies of the measured variables shows that the respondents’

reactions are more affirmative in their use of interpersonal communication in building

perception about people and issues. It is evident that interpersonal communication creates

affective reaction either to the negative or positive within the work place.

lxiv

Although the hypothesis for the study was supported, the limitations and

recommendations suggest that they are many areas open to future research. This chapter will

discuss in details the interpretations of the findings, limitations of the study and

recommendations for future research.

Interpretations

As previously explained in preceding chapters, the intension of the study was to

explore the role of interpersonal communication in perception of fairness of employee during

performance appraisal and perception of supervisors in the workplace. The literature review

sited lots of studies concerning the relationship between supervisors’ affective regards for

subordinates and their performance appraisal rating. In general, the conclusions that may be

drawn from the study are that a rater’s affective regards for a ratee is associated frequently

with such correlations as higher rating, a higher quality relationship, less inclination to

punish poor performance, and greater halo and less accuracy. While the association between

liking and rating does not always occur, job performance is controlled if the perception of

fairness by employee is consistently viewed as low.

In this study, I examined factors that may contribute to enhancement of performance

appraisal ratings. The study also examined the influence of (1) interpersonal communication

on supervisors’ perception of employee personality during performance appraisal and (2)

employee perception of fairness based on interpersonal communication with supervisor

during performance appraisal. the data suggested a significant relationship between the

independent and dependent variables as follows:

lxv

1: interpersonal communication on supervisors’ perception of employee personality

during performance appraisal

I investigated the influence of supervisor’s perception of interpersonal

communication on employee performance appraisal by comparing interpersonal

communication (IV), perception (IV) and performance appraisal (DV) using a Chi Square

test.

The chi-square statistic was used to test the fit between a theoretical frequency

distribution and a frequency distribution of observed data for which each observation may

fall into one of several classes. For instances, the hypothesis for this study predicted that

interpersonal communication will serve as a significant predictor of favorable performance

appraisal from supervisors. Chi square test was used to test the Independable variables

against the dependent variable to see how much resulting effects it has.

Based on the test, two conclusions of very high significant values were reached:

1. High degree of positive interpersonal communication (IC) (e.g. choice of words etc)

results in high performance appraisal (PA). Thus: +IC = +PA.

2. Interpersonal communication results in building perception (p) which in turn

influence performance appraisal. Thus: IC = P = PA.

2: Employee perception of fairness based on interpersonal communication with

supervisor during performance appraisal

The second hypothesis stated: perception of interpersonal communication from

supervisors will correlated with employee perception of fairness during performance

appraisal.

lxvi

A correlation analysis was done with the objective to measure the degree that two

continuous variables move together from one case to another. The test was run to explore

potential relationship between the variables and does not in anyway suggest a cause and

effect relationship.

The two variables tested were performance appraisal, perception of fairness and

supervisors interpersonal communication. Correlation was found to be significant at the .01

level. This suggests that if supervisors communicated more with employees by taking them

through the appraisal process and giving them an opportunity to questions the appraisal it

will increase subordinates perception of fairness of their appraisal rating.

The data also suggest that if employees were aware of some of the factors that

influence supervisor’s rating of their appraisal they may be more withing to use that

information to enhance their appraisal rating, which In turn will increase their fairness

perception of the rating. For instance questions (15) my performance appraisal is based on

the quality and quantity of my work and not my personality or position. 20.7% of respondents

strongly agreed, while 36.6% agreed making a total of 57.3% of respondents whom agree.

Question (16) supervisors give performance ratings that reflect, in part, their personal

likening or dislike of employees. 28% strongly agree and 31.7% agree making a total of 59%

and in questions (18) I’m of the opinions that improving my interpersonal communication

style will effects my performance appraisal positively 25.6% strongly agree and 50.0% agree

bring the total to 75.6% (refer to table appendix B subordinates frequency table).

The above data suggest that a great number of respondent are a wear of factors that

influence their appraisal rating, however it does not tell if they have tried exploring its

possibilities of increased performance appraisal.

lxvii

Limitations

Some limitations as with any other study exist in the study. Though certain limitations

could affect the validity of a study, during this study appropriate measures were taken to

ensure that the impacts of these limitations are minimized.

Due to the nature of the survey instrument which required respondents to answer all

questions relatively, errors can be produced if a respondent interprets a question differently

than intended. The survey instrument pose further challenge as it does not collect data

regarding non-verbal communications and cues; thus respondents are focus to fall within

general categories which reflects the opinions and bias of the researcher.

The research instrument used was modified specifically for this study. Though a pre

test was performed to assess the reliability and validity of the instrument, never-the-less,

there is no previously developed and rigorously evaluated body of result for the instrument

used.

The survey questions deal with respondent attitudes towards supervisor and

subordinates interaction. The survey does not include question items that allow the

respondent to report behaviors towards the reference employee or supervisor. Consequently,

there may be a positive or negative reciprocity between the respondent’s behavior and the

employee communication techniques not clearly indicated by the survey instrument.

The causal relationships between variables are unclear, and appear to have reciprocal

effects. This study does not act to determine the complete interactions and effects between

the variables.

lxviii

The sample population was from within Bowie state University which is essentially

an academic unit. Therefore, the generalization of the findings is limited since other

organizations with different cultures might view perceptions of interpersonal communication

during performance appraisal differently.

Recommendations

The recommendations that are provided can serve as a measure to improve

subordinates perception of fairness in performance appraisal and to enhance their capacity to

influence their rating positively through interpersonal communication. Since the research has

established that performance appraisal is complex information processing task which is

influenced by a host of affective, motivational and interpersonal factors that are manifested

through interpersonal communication, it is ideal that both subordinates and supervisors

understand this social context and work around them for organizational effectiveness and

personal job satisfaction.

By applying theories and methods from non-traditional and organizational areas, the

present study provides a natural starting point for future research. First, researchers can

replicate the present study using a different field sample, because the influence of the social

context is more salient in a business organizational setting, context may exert a great

influence.

Second, previous research in performance appraisal accuracy has largely ignored the

possible influence of context at the instrument level. The research paradigm used in the

present study may be applied in future research to investigate other instrument level context

effects in performance appraisal. For example, I believe that these result may be due to a

lxix

context with an affective component to it. Future research should examine how context

induced by a scale that elicits affective responses influences contextual performance items.

While this study found some correlation between the variable discussed, it can not

clearly present a cause and effect relationship to the variables. In this regards there are a

number of directions in which this study’s information can be expended.

For instance, the study can be expended to include factors such as levels of education

and exposure of both supervisors and subordinates. Factors such as organizational culture,

social affiliations such as politics etc can be considered to decide casual relationship between

variables to know precise factors that have reciprocal effects and determine complete

interaction and effects between the variables.

Appendix A- Instrument

Code________Supervisor’s Questionnaire

Perceptions of fairness: Interpersonal communication and performance appraisal in the work place

am a graduate student at Bowie State University studying for a masters degree in Organizational Communication. The attached survey is part of my thesis research, which is a requirement for the completion of the degree. The survey is intended to sample opinions of supervisors on how

interpersonal communication between them and their subordinates might impact on performance appraisal. It involves individual perceptions of actions of people they relate to within the work place. In this regard, there is no right or wrong answers to the questions on the survey; I’m only interested in your views as they relate to you in the different scenarios presented. I’m not interested in your

I

lxx

identity, and all information provided will be used solely for the purpose of this study. For each question, please simply circle the letter by the response that best represents your view. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

Agbenu Esther Ochoga

Part 1: Participant Information

1. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female

2. What is your racial/ethnic origin? a. African American b. Caucasianb. Hispanic d. Native Americane. Others

3. How many people do you supervise? a. 1 – 5 b. 6 – 10

c. 11 – 15 d. More than 164. What Kind of supervisor are you?

a. Academic head of Department b. Academic Deanc. Administrative Head

5. How many years have you been a supervisor? a. 1 – 5 b. 6 – 10 c. 11 – 15 d. More than 16

Part 2: Skill Assessment

Please mark the box that best reflects your view of factors that will positively influence your appraisal of subordinates

strongly agree

Agree

Not Sure Disagree

strongly disagree

6 Communication: Relevance and clarity of written and verbal expression; effectiveness in exchanging ideas and information with others in an appropriate manner; understanding what has been said; probing for better understanding.

7 Creativity and Resourcefulness: Being a flexible problem solver; understanding and working effectively with peers and upper management; handling pressure and ambiguity; finding better ways of doing things; generating new concepts, approaches, methods or applications.

8 Cooperation with Others: Working hard to understand others; getting the cooperation of peers; not alienating others

9 Flexibility: Able to adapt to the needs of a fast paced work environment; able to switch tasks when necessary to get the job done.

Part 3: Perceptions

Please mark the box that reflects your perceptions:

The following reflects my perceptions: strongly

agree Agree

Not Sure Disagree

strongly disagree

10I’m of the opinion that through interpersonal communication in the work place employees create their identity.

11It is through employee’s interpersonal communication that I shape my perception of my subordinates.

12 My perceptions of subordinate’s Interpersonal communication skills influence my rating of their performance appraisal?

lxxi

I consider the following to be positive interpersonal communication:YES NO

13 Subordinates who use pleasant tone of voice and choice of words when talking to me.14

subordinates who tell me they appreciate my work

I consider the following to be negative interpersonal communication:YES NO

15 When I complain, and a subordinate thinks it’s an opportunity to remind me about their skills and qualification.

16 A subordinate is quick to make excuses for problems they cause and try to blame it on others.

I’m likely to positively rate employees for these reasons:strongly

agree Agree

Not Sure Disagree

strongly disagree

17Effect of past record: Good work in a previous rating period.

18Compatibility: The employee simply pleases me and is easy to get along with

19 Single Good Trait. A person with an impressive characteristic --degree, ability to speak well, appearance -

I’m likely to negatively rate employees for these reasonsstrongly

agree Agree

Not Sure Disagree

strongly disagree

20Personality traits: The person just "rubs me the wrong way."

21Contrariness: The employee is not as cooperative as others.

22Differences: The employee is different, non-conformist.

Code________Subordinate’s Questionnaire

Perceptions of fairness: Interpersonal communication and performance appraisal in the work place

am a graduate student at Bowie State University studying for my masters degree in Organizational Communication. The attached survey is part of my thesis research, which is a requirement for the completion of the degree. The survey is intended to sample opinions of

subordinates on their perception of fairness of their performance appraisal. It involves individual perceptions of actions of their supervisors during performance appraisal exercises. In this regard, there are no right or wrong answers to the questions on this survey, the survey is only interested in your views as they relate to you in the different scenarios presented. Am not interested in your identity, and all information provided will be used solely for the purpose of this study. For each

I

lxxii

question, please simply circle the letter by the response that best represents your view. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

Agbenu Esther Ochoga

Part 1: Participant Information

3. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female

4. What is your racial/ethnic origin? a. African American b. Caucasiana. Hispanic d. Native Americanf. Others

3. How long have you been an employee? a. 1 – 5 b. 6 – 10

c. 11 – 15 d. More than 164. What Kind of employee are you?

b. Academicc. Administrative

Part 2: perceptions about Raters & Appraisal process

Please mark the box that best reflect your view of your Supervisor (Rater) or the Appraisal process

strongly agree

Agree

Not Sure Disagree

strongly disagree

5 My rater understands the requirements and difficulties of my work

6 My rater clearly explains to me the standards that will be used to evaluate my work.

7 My rater explains how I can improve my performance

8 As a result of the performance appraisal I better understand my supervisor’s expectations of my performance.

9 My performance rating is largely based on how I do my work while relating to others

10 my performance rating is based solely on how well I do my work

11 my rater gives me clear and real example to justify his or her rating of my work

Please mark the box that best reflect your view of your Supervisor (Rater) or the Appraisal process

strongly agree

Agree

Not Sure Disagree

strongly disagree

13 My rater lets ask him or her questions about my performance rating

13 My rater gives me the rating that I earn even when it might upset me.

14 The rating I get is a result of my rater applying performance rating standards consistently across employees.

15 My performance appraisal is based on the quality and quantity of my work and not my personality or position.

lxxiii

16 supervisors give performance ratings that reflect, in part, their personal like or dislike of employees

17 my rater treats me with dignity18 Am of the opinions that improving my interpersonal

communication style will effects my performance appraisal positively.

Appendix B

Frequency Table Supervisor

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

lxxiv

Valid MALE 35 57.4 58.3 58.3

FEMALE 25 41.0 41.7 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

Race

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid AA 33 54.1 55.0 55.0

CC 3 4.9 5.0 60.0

OTHER 24 39.3 40.0 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

Number of people you supervise

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid 1-5 14 23.0 23.3 23.3

6-10 32 52.5 53.3 76.7

11-15 6 9.8 10.0 86.7

MORE16 8 13.1 13.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

Kind of supervisor

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid AHD 16 26.2 26.7 26.7

AD 6 9.8 10.0 36.7

AH 38 62.3 63.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

Number of years you have been a supervisor

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid 1-5 19 31.1 31.7 31.7

6 - 10 33 54.1 55.0 86.7

11 - 15 6 9.8 10.0 96.7

more16 2 3.3 3.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0

lxxv

Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

6) Communication

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 35 57.4 58.3 58.3

A 19 31.1 31.7 90.0

DA 4 6.6 6.7 96.7

SD 2 3.3 3.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

7) Creativity and Resourcefulness

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 35 57.4 58.3 58.3

A 19 31.1 31.7 90.0

DA 4 6.6 6.7 96.7

SD 2 3.3 3.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

8) Cooperation with Others

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 39 63.9 65.0 65.0

3 15 24.6 25.0 90.0

da 2 3.3 3.3 93.3

sd 4 6.6 6.7 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

9) Flexibility

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 33 54.1 55.0 55.0

A 21 34.4 35.0 90.0

DA 4 6.6 6.7 96.7

SD 2 3.3 3.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6

lxxvi

Total 61 100.0

10) Through interpersonal comm. employee create their identity.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 20 32.8 33.3 33.3

A 30 49.2 50.0 83.3

NS 2 3.3 3.3 86.7

DA 8 13.1 13.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

11) Through interpersonal communication I shape perception of my subordinates.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 14 23.0 23.3 23.3

A 22 36.1 36.7 60.0

NS 2 3.3 3.3 63.3

DA 22 36.1 36.7 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

12) Perception of subordinate's interpersonal communication influences my rating.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 12 19.7 20.0 20.0

A 26 42.6 43.3 63.3

NS 2 3.3 3.3 66.7

DA 20 32.8 33.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

13) Positive communication is when subordinates use pleasant voice tone and choice of words when talking to me.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid YES 48 78.7 80.0 80.0

NO 12 19.7 20.0 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

lxxvii

14) Positive communication is my subordinates telling me they appreciate my work.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid YES 27 44.3 45.0 45.0

NO 33 54.1 55.0 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

15) Negative communication is subordinate reminding me about their skills and qualification.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid YES 38 62.3 63.3 63.3

NO 22 36.1 36.7 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

16) Negative Communication is subordinate making excuses and blaming others for problems they cause.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid YES 46 75.4 76.7 76.7

NO 14 23.0 23.3 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

17) I'm likely to rate employee positively for effects of pass record.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 6 9.8 10.0 10.0

A 22 36.1 36.7 46.7

DA 23 37.7 38.3 85.0

SD 9 14.8 15.0 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

lxxviii

18) I'm likely to rate employee positively for high compatibility with me.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 8 13.1 13.3 13.3

A 23 37.7 38.3 51.7

DA 28 45.9 46.7 98.3

SD 1 1.6 1.7 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

19) I'm likely to rate employee positively for simple good traits.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 16 26.2 26.7 26.7

A 20 32.8 33.3 60.0

NS 4 6.6 6.7 66.7

DA 17 27.9 28.3 95.0

SD 3 4.9 5.0 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

20) I'm likely to rate employee negatively for personality traits.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 7 11.5 11.7 11.7

A 4 6.6 6.7 18.3

NS 12 19.7 20.0 38.3

DA 28 45.9 46.7 85.0

SD 9 14.8 15.0 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

21) I'm likely to rate employee negatively for contrariness.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 6 9.8 10.0 10.0

A 14 23.0 23.3 33.3

NS 5 8.2 8.3 41.7

DA 29 47.5 48.3 90.0

SD 6 9.8 10.0 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

lxxix

22) I'm likely to rate employee negatively for been different and non-conformist.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 7 11.5 11.7 11.7

A 7 11.5 11.7 23.3

NS 4 6.6 6.7 30.0

DA 27 44.3 45.0 75.0

SD 15 24.6 25.0 100.0

Total 60 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 61 100.0

Frequency Table Subordinate

1) What is your gender?

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid Male 32 39.0 39.0 39.0

Female 50 61.0 61.0 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

2) What is your race?

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

lxxx

Valid AA 62 75.6 75.6 75.6

CC 10 12.2 12.2 87.8

OTHER 10 12.2 12.2 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

3) How long have you been an employee?

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid 1-5 55 67.1 67.1 67.1

6-10 7 8.5 8.5 75.6

11-15 8 9.8 9.8 85.4

MORE 16 12 14.6 14.6 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

4) What kind of employee are you?

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid ACA 35 42.7 42.7 42.7

ADMIN 47 57.3 57.3 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

5) My rater understands the requirements of my work

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 30 36.6 36.6 36.6

A 39 47.6 47.6 84.1

NS 5 6.1 6.1 90.2

DA 5 6.1 6.1 96.3

SD 3 3.7 3.7 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

6) My rater explains to me the standard used for evaluation

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 20 24.4 24.4 24.4

A 40 48.8 48.8 73.2

NS 9 11.0 11.0 84.1

DA 10 12.2 12.2 96.3

SD 3 3.7 3.7 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

7) My rater explains how I can improve my performance

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 18 22.0 22.0 22.0

lxxxi

A 36 43.9 43.9 65.9

NS 7 8.5 8.5 74.4

DA 16 19.5 19.5 93.9

S 5 6.1 6.1 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

8) As a result of Performance Appraisal I understand my supervisors’ expectations of my performance

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 30 36.6 36.6 36.6

A 32 39.0 39.0 75.6

NS 7 8.5 8.5 84.1

DA 13 15.9 15.9 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

9) My Performance Appraisal is largely based on how I do my work while relating to others

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 17 20.7 20.7 20.7

A 41 50.0 50.0 70.7

NS 5 6.1 6.1 76.8

DA 17 20.7 20.7 97.6

SD 2 2.4 2.4 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

10) My PA rating is based solely on how well i do my work

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 11 13.4 13.4 13.4

A 32 39.0 39.0 52.4

NS 5 6.1 6.1 58.5

DA 26 31.7 31.7 90.2

SD 8 9.8 9.8 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

11) My rater gives me real examples to justify his/her rating of my work

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 13 15.9 15.9 15.9

A 37 45.1 45.1 61.0

lxxxii

NS 11 13.4 13.4 74.4

DA 16 19.5 19.5 93.9

SD 5 6.1 6.1 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

12) My rater lets me ask question about my Performance Appraisal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 17 20.7 20.7 20.7

A 49 59.8 59.8 80.5

NS 8 9.8 9.8 90.2

DA 8 9.8 9.8 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

13) My rater gives that I earn even when it might upset me

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 16 19.5 19.5 19.5

A 39 47.6 47.6 67.1

NS 11 13.4 13.4 80.5

DA 13 15.9 15.9 96.3

SD 3 3.7 3.7 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

14) The rating i get is a result of my rater applying PA rating standards consistently across employee

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 15 18.3 18.3 18.3

A 30 36.6 36.6 54.9

NS 18 22.0 22.0 76.8

DA 11 13.4 13.4 90.2

SD 8 9.8 9.8 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

15) My PA is based on the quality of my work not my personality

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 17 20.7 20.7 20.7

A 30 36.6 36.6 57.3

NS 15 18.3 18.3 75.6

lxxxiii

DA 10 12.2 12.2 87.8

SD 10 12.2 12.2 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

16) My Supervisor gives PA that reflects in part his liking or dislike of employees

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 23 28.0 28.0 28.0

A 26 31.7 31.7 59.8

NS 20 24.4 24.4 84.1

DA 8 9.8 9.8 93.9

SD 5 6.1 6.1 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

17) My rater treats me with dignity

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 20 24.4 24.4 24.4

A 47 57.3 57.3 81.7

NS 8 9.8 9.8 91.5

DA 7 8.5 8.5 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

18) Improving my interpersonal communication style will affect my performance appraisal positively.

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid SA 21 25.6 25.6 25.6

A 41 50.0 50.0 75.6

NS 13 15.9 15.9 91.5

DA 6 7.3 7.3 98.8

SD 1 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 82 100.0 100.0

lxxxiv

Reference

Adams, K.L (1981) Question/ answer adjacency pairs in a performance appraisal interview. Journal of Applied communication Research, 9, 72-84

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

Arkin, R. M., Appleman, A. J., & Berger, J. M. 1980. Social anxiety, self-presentation, and the self-serving bias in causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 23-35.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 88-115.

Bernardin, H.J, Cooke, D.K & Villanova, P. (2000) Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 232-234.

lxxxv

Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Baron, R. A. 1989. Impression management by applicants during employment interviews:The "too much of a good thing" effect. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The

employment interview: Theory, research and practice: 204-215. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buss, D. M., Gomes, M., Higgins, D. S., & Lauterbach, K. 1987. Tactics of manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1219-1229.

Cascio W.F. (1998). Applied Psychology in human resource management, NJ: Prentice Hall

Cascio, W.F (1995) Applied Psychology in human resource management NJ: Prentice Hall

Cardy, R.M. (1986). Affect and Appraisal Accuracy: Liking as an Integral Dimension in evaluating performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 672-678

Cusella, L.P (1987) Feedback, motivation, and performance. In F.M.Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts & L.W.Porter (eds) Handbook of organizational communication. An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 624-678) Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Cleveland, J.N, Murphy, K.R & Williams, R.E (1989) Multiple uses of performanceAppraisal: prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,130-135

Cronen, V.E, Pearce, W.B & Changsheng. X (1989) The meaning of “meaning” in the CMM Analysis of communication. A comparison of two traditions. Research on Language and social interaction, 23, 1-40

Cialdini, R. B. 1989. Indirect tactics of image management: Beyond basking. In R. A.Cropanzano, R. & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 317–372). New York: Wiley.

Cropanzano, R. & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 317–372). New York: Wiley.

Cialdini, R. B., & DeNicholas, M. E. 1989. Self-presentation by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 626-631.

Denisi, A.S & Peter, L.H (1996) Organization of information in memory and the

lxxxvi

performance appraisal process: evidence from the field. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 717-737

Deetz, S.A (1992) Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: development in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: state university of New York press

DeNisi, A. S., & Williams, K. J. 1988. Cognitive approaches to performance appraisal. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 6: 109-155. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

DeNisi, A.S, Cafferty, T.P & Meglino, B.M (1984) A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model & some research proposition. Organizational Behavior and Human performance. 33, 360-396.

DePaulo, B. M. 1992. Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 203-243.

Dipboye, R. L. 1989. Threats to the incremental validity of interviewer judgments. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice: 45-60. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dipboye, R.L (1985)Some neglected variables in research on discrimination in appraisal. Academy of Management Review, 10, 116-127.

Downs, T.M (1990) Predictors of communication satisfaction during performance appraisal interviews. Management communication Quarterly 3, 334-354

Dulewicz, V. (1989) Performance appraisal and counseling, in Herriot, P., Assessmentand selection in organizations: methods and practices for recruitment and

appraisal, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 645-649.

Earl Babbie (2005) The Basics of social Research. 3rd edition. Thomson Wadsworth, Canada

Erhart, J.F (1976) The performance appraisal interview & evaluation of student performances in speech communication courses. Communication education, 25, 237-245

Em Griffin (2006) A first look at communication theory; McGraw Hill. Boston

Feldman, J. M. 1986. A note on the statistical correction of halo error. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 173-176.

Feld, J.M (1981) Beyond attribution theory: cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127-148

lxxxvii

Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. 1994. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 101-135.

Ferris, G.R & Judge, T.A (1991) Personnel/ Human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of management, 17, 447-488.

Folger, R. & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 79-90.

Folger, R. & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fiske, S. T., Neuberg, S. L., Beattie, A. E., & Milberg, S. J. 1987. Category-based and attribute-based reactions to others: Some informational conditions of stereotyping and individuating processes. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 23: 399-407.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. 1959. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power: 150-167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Frey, Lawrence R.; Boton, Carl H; & Kreps, G.L (2000) . Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Geddes, D.& Linnehan , F (1996) Exploring the dimensionality of positive and negative performance feedback. Communication Quarterly, 44, 326-344

Gergen, K.J & Kaye, J (1992) Beyond narrative in the negotiation of thematic meaning. In S.McNamee & K.J Gergen (eds), Therapy as social construction (pp 166-185) Landon Sage

Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. 1989. The politics of the employment interview. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice: 195-203. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Greenwald, A. G. 1980. The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35: 603-618.

Greenberg, J. (1987b). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.

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

lxxxviii

Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching justice in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grote. D (1996) The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: AMACOM

Goldstein, L.L. (1993). Training in organization (3rd ed) pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole

Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization: 45-56. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guion, R.M (1998) Assessment, Measurement and Prediction for personnel decisions. NJ: LEA

Grote, D. (1996) The Complete Guide to Performance Appraisal. New York: AMACOM

Gergen, K.J (1985) Social constructionist inquiry: context and implications. In K.J

Gergen & K.E.Davis (eds) The social construction of the person (pp.3-18) New York: springer Verlag

Hannah, C & McAdam, E. (1990) Violence-part 1: Reflections on our work with violence. Human sysytms: The Journal of systemic consultation & management, 2, 201-216

Henry, Gary T. (1990). Practical sampling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hoffman, L. (1990) Constructing realities: an art of lenses family process, 29, 1-12

Ifante, Dominic A; Rancer, Andrew S.; Womack, Deanna; (1997). BuildingCommunication Theory. (3rd ed). Prospects heights, III: Waveland press Inc. 1990

Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. 1983. Performance appraisal: A process focus. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 5: 141-197. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ilgen .D.R & Favero J.L (1985) Limits in generalization from Psychological research to performance appraisal process. Academy of management review, 10, 311-321.

Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 80-105.

Kaplan, A. (1964) The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics:

lxxxix

Exploration of getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 440-452.

Kipnis, D., & Vanderveer, R. 1971. Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17: 280-286.

Konovsky, M. A. & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testingas a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 698-707.Kaplan, A. (1964) The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler

Krayer, K.J (1987) Simulation method for teaching the performance appraisal interview. Communication education, 36, 276-283

Krayer, K.J (1987) Simulation method for teaching the performance appraisal interview. Communication education, 36, 276-283

Landy, F.J & Farr, J.L (1980) Performance Rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107

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

Longenecker, C., Sims, H & Giola, D (1987) Behind the mask: the politics of employee appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. 1980. Performance ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 87: 72-107.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. 1990. Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34-47.

Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. 1988. Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13: 572-587.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. * In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–131). New York: Academic Press.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J. & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.

Markus, H. 1980. The self in thought and memory. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher

xc

(Eds.), The self in social psychology: 102-130. New York: Oxford University Press.

Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. 1985. Role of the self-concept in the perception of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 1494-1512.

McGregor. D (1957a) An uneasy look at Performance Appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 35, 89 -94

McGregor, D (1957b) The human side of enterprise In M.J.Handel (ed), The sociology of organizations: classic, contemporary and critical reading (pp 108-113) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

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.

Mitchell, T. R. 1985. An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 10: 192-205.

Mani, B.G (2002) Performance Appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: a case study. Public personnel management; 31, 141-159

Murphy, K. R, & Cleveland, J.N (1991) Performance Appraisal: An organizational Perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Murphy, K.R & Cleveland. J.N (1995) Understand performance appraisal: social, organizational, and goal-based perspective, Thousand oaks, CA: Sage publication

Nathan, B.R & Lord, R.G (1983) Cognitive categorization and dimensional schemata: A process approach to the study of halo in Performance rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 102-114

O’Relly, C.A. III, & Anderson J.C (1980) Trust and the communication of performance appraisal information: the effect of feedback on performance & job satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 6, 290-298

Pearce, W.B (1992) A camper’s guide to constructism. Human System: The Journal of systematic consultation & Management, 3, 139-161

Phillips, A. P., & Dipboye, R. L. 1989. Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 41-52.

Powers, T. A., & Zuroff, D. C. 1988. Interpersonal consequences of overt self-criticism: A comparison with neutral and self-enhancing presentations of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1054-1062.

xci

Ralston, D. A., & Elsass, P. M. 1989. Ingratiation and impression management in the organization. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization: 235-247. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Remland, M.S & Jones T.S (1985) Sex differences communication consistency & Judgments of harassment in a performance appraisal interview. Southern speech communication journal, 50, 156-176.

Robbins,T.L &Denisi, A.S. (1994) A closer look at interpersonal affect as distinctinfluence on Cognitive processing in performance evaluations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 341-353

Roger .D. Wimmer & Joseph .R. Dominick (1987) Mass Media Research: An Introduction 2nd edition. Thomson Wadsworth, Canada

Ryan, A. (1993). Justice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Schraeder .M & Simpson. J (2006) How similarity and Liking Affect Performance Appraisals. Journal for Quality & Participation, 34-40

Schlenker, B. R. 1980. Impression management: The self-concept, social identity and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. 1982a. Social anxiety and self-presentations: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92: 641-669.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leafy, M. R. 1982b. Audiences' reactions to self-enhancing, self-denigrating, and accurate self-presentations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18: 89-104.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. 1992. Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: 133-168. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R. & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 455-460.

Shapiro, D. (1993). Reconciling theoretical differences among procedural justice research by re-evaluating what it means to have one's views “considered”: Implications for third party managers. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 51–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

xcii

Schmitt, N. W., & Klimoski, R. J. 1991. Research methods in human resources management. Cincinnati: South-Western.

Schneider, D. J. 1991. Social cognition. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: 527-561. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Srull, T. K., & Gaelick, L. 1983. General principles and individual differences in the self as a habitual reference point: An examination of self-other judgments of similarity. Social Cognition, 2: 108-121.

Swann, W. B. 1982. Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, vol. 2: 33-66. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swann, W. B., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. 1992. Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62: 392-401.

Shockley-Zalabak .P.S. (2006) Fundamentals of Organizational Communication; New York, Person

Stewart, C.J & Cash W.B. Jr (1985) Interviewing: Principles & Practices (4th ed) Dubuque, IA: WMC Brown Publishers

Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tsui, A. S. 1984. A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 64-96.

Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333-344.

Tyler, T. R. & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tsui, A. S., & Barry, B. 1986. Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 586-599.

Thomas, S.L & Bretz, R.D, Jr (1994) Research and Practice in performance in America’s largest companies. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 4, 28-34

Wanguri D.M (1995) A Review, integration, and a critique of cross- disciplinary research on performance appraisals, appraisals and feedback: 1980 -1990. The Journal of Business communication, 32, 267-293

xciii

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: 487-499.

Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, M. K. 1991. The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48: 70-88.

Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1981. Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28: 356-378.

Williams, S.L, & Hummert, M.L (1990) Evaluating performance appraisal instrument dimensions using construct analysis. Journal of Business communication 27, 117-135.

Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. 1992. Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 525-535.

Zajonc, R. B. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35: 151-175.

xciv