Performance Appraisal Problems in the Public Sector: Examining Supervisors’ Perceptions
| DOI | 10.1177/0091026018801045 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
Public Personnel Management
2019, Vol. 48(2) 179 –202
Performance Appraisal
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Problems in the Public
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018801045
DOI: 10.1177/0091026018801045
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm
Sector: Examining
Supervisors’ Perceptions
Yu-Chun Lin1 and J. Edward Kellough1
Abstract
Employee perceptions of performance appraisal processes have received considerable
attention in the public management literature, but the views of supervisors who
actually conduct the appraisals have received relatively little consideration. This article
addresses that gap in the literature by examining supervisors’ perceptions of individual
employee performance appraisal in the U.S. federal service in an attempt to identify
structural and operational problems associated with that system as viewed by those
responsible for making it work. Data are drawn from a Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), Merit Principles Survey, which contained a section asking supervisors
to evaluate nine potential problems associated with performance appraisal. Responses
indicated that inflated ratings, flawed standards, and a lack of support were the most
problematic aspects of the appraisal process. An agency’s use of performance-based
rewards, a supervisor’s belief that his or her own performance is assessed objectively,
and supervisor age are consistent predictors of supervisors’ perceptions.
Keywords
employee performance appraisal, performance management, civil service reform,
supervisors’ perceptions, performance appraisal problems
Formal procedures by which supervisors assess the performance of individual subor-
dinate employees are an essential management tool in any organization. Supervisors
can use performance ratings to inform decisions on a range of critical personnel issues
1University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
J. Edward Kellough, Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, 204 Baldwin
Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Email: kellough@uga.edu
180
Public Personnel Management 48(2)
including promotion, training, retention, demotion, dismissal, reassignment, and rein-
statement (Battaglio, 2015; Daley, 1992). In addition, performance appraisal can be a
mechanism to enhance employee motivation and help employees adjust the way they
work to better achieve organizational goals (Ayers, 2015; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor,
1979; Rubin, 2015; Taylor & Pierce, 1999). In short, performance appraisal can have
significant positive impacts on employee performance and organizational effective-
ness. It is central to strategies for performance management and rests on multiple theo-
retical bases including principles of motivation grounded on goal-setting theory and
social learning theory (Bandura, 1978; Locke & Latham, 1990).1 Performance
appraisal is a mechanism by which individual goals and behaviors are aligned with
organizational objectives (Ayers, 2015). It is a process that should help employees
understand and accept organizational norms.
But if performance appraisal is to be useful as a device through which managers
motivate and coach employees, procedures and processes utilized must be accepted by
those employees and their supervisors (Iqbal, Akbar, & Budhwar, 2015; Levy &
Williams, 2004; Longenecker & Nykodym, 1996; Walsh & Fisher, 2005). Earlier work
has shown that perceptions of performance appraisal by nonsupervisory employees
often depend on three interrelated factors, including (a) the purposes for which the
appraisal is used, (b) the extent to which the process is considered fair, and (c) the
degree to which the results are seen as accurate (Iqbal et al., 2015). Given this frame-
work for viewing appraisal systems, it is not surprising, for example, to find that when
performance appraisal is used to determine eligibility for annual pay increases, as in
pay-for-performance systems, many employees will see the process as unfair and the
results as inaccurate (see, for example, Kellough & Nigro, 2002).
In contrast, the views of supervisors, as opposed to those of nonsupervisory employ-
ees, are likely to hinge on more specific structural and operational aspects of the
appraisal process. For instance, previous work has suggested that supervisors may be
less optimistic than nonsupervisory employees regarding the extent to which perfor-
mance appraisal discussions are useful in improving employee performance, and they
may be significantly more likely to indicate that higher ratings are rotated among
deserving employees when pay is associated with performance appraisal outcomes
(Kellough & Nigro, 2002). Research has also found that supervisors are often con-
cerned about appraisal forms and types of rating systems used whereas nonsupervisory
employees are most concerned with the overall outcomes of appraisals (Mount, 1984;
Pooyan & Eberhardt, 1989). These kinds of findings are significant, in part, because
supervisors are the people who manage and implement the performance appraisal pro-
cess and presumably have significant influence on the operation and effectiveness of
that process (Baxter, 2012; Park, 2014; Roberts, 2003). If supervisors are skeptical of
performance appraisal discussions with employees, for example, they may not allow
adequate time for those discussions, or they may not conduct them in a way that maxi-
mizes their value. The bottom line is that supervisors are familiar with all that is good
and bad in performance appraisal systems, and as a result, they are well positioned to
provide insight into issues that may be most problematic.
Nevertheless, supervisors’ perceptions of problems in the appraisal process are not
well discussed in the academic literature. The studies cited above provide some insight,
Lin and Kellough
181
but general questions of how supervisors view the performance appraisal process,
what problems are usually seen by supervisors, and what causes those perceptions are
largely unanswered. The present study seeks to address this gap in our scholarship by
evaluating problems in the performance appraisal process as perceived by U.S. federal
government supervisors. We focus on explicit structural or operational problems and
examine the extent to which supervisors perceive difficulties, variation in their percep-
tions, and variables associated with that variation.
Literature Review: Potential Problems in Performance
Appraisal
It is widely understood that employee performance appraisal rests ultimately on the
judgment of supervisors. As a result, the integrity of appraisal systems is dependent on
the appropriate exercise of that judgment. Errors in judgment are, of course, always
possible, and the literature on performance appraisal has long recognized a number of
common errors in judgment that can plague the appraisal process, although the actual
extent of these errors is largely undocumented (see, for example, Armstrong, 2010;
Battaglio, 2015; Daley, 1992; Kellough, 2012; Mitchell & Gamlem, 2012). Among the
most common potential judgment errors are the following:
1. The “halo effect” whereby a supervisor observes a subordinate doing one task
well and rates that person high on all tasks (the opposite is, of course, also
possible).
2. The “first impression error” where the rating is determined by the initial
impression the supervisor forms of the employee.
3. The “similar-to-me effect” that occurs when supervisors rate employees higher
when those employees exhibit behaviors similar to the supervisor’s own
actions.
4. Employee “comparison or contrast effects” where employees are rated relative
to each other rather than relative to specific criteria and standards.
5. The “central tendency error” that occurs when employees are typically rated at
the mid-point of rating scales used.
In addition to these errors in judgment, positive or negative bias based on factors
such as sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability status, or other inappropriate considerations
will also produce erroneous performance assessments (Baxter, 2012; Johnson &
Ronan, 1979; Lewis, 1997; Nalbandian, 1981; Rubin & Edwards, 2018). The develop-
ment and implementation of a well-designed performance appraisal system that
includes adequate training for supervisors in the appraisal process is required if these
and similar errors are to be mitigated.
But problems caused by bias and other forms of faulty judgment are not the only
source of difficulties in performance appraisal. There can be problems in the structure
of the appraisal system or in its operation as well. For example, supervisors may lack
sufficient support from higher management to allow them to conduct appraisals suc-
cessfully. Supervisors may also have inadequate information and/or time to conduct
182
Public Personnel Management 48(2)
appraisals. In addition, standards for performance may be inappropriately defined and
communicated to supervisors. To gain insight into the presence of these kinds of struc-
tural and operational problems in performance appraisal, the perceptions of supervisors
are of key importance. As they sit at the nexus between organizations and employees,
supervisors not only operate the evaluation process, but also receive feedback from
both employees and upper managers regarding the operation of the system and its out-
comes...
To continue reading
Request your trial