Professional Notes

• Author: Jerrell D. Coggburn
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X9801800105
• Published date: 01 January 1998
• Date: 01 January 1998
• Subject Matter: Articles

Professional Notes
Subordinate Appraisals of Managers:
Lessons From A
State Agency*
Jerrell D. Coggburn
University of South Carolina
e
use of performance appraisals by
Beatty, 1984; Deming, 1986; Thayer, 1987;
t state governments is widespread.
Nalbandian, 1981; Feild & Holley, 1975).
JL According to the National Associa-
A
good deal of research has focused on ways
tion of State Personnel Executives
of improving performance appraisal pro-
[NASPE] (1996, p. 107), no fewer than 40’
cesses.
Participatory, goal oriented ap-
state governments have performance ap-
praisal, for example, has been identified as
praisal systems in place. The ubiquity of
a promising approach for improving perfor-
performance appraisal and its status as the
mance evaluation (see Roberts &
Reed
centerpiece of pubhc human resource man-
1996; Moussavi & Ashbaugh 1995; Hays
agement (deLeon & Ewen
1997; Fox, 1991;
& Graham 1993, p. 146). While these find-
England & Parle 1987; Mount, 1984; Tyer,
ings are encouragmg, a basic problem still
1982) can be understood largely on the basis
remains: the evaluation picture created by
of its broad appeal. For managers, apprais-
a single rater approach is far from complete,
als offer a measure of control over employ-
as important perspectives on performance
ees and/or a valuable tool for coordination
are ignored. Since the behaviors a single
(Fox, 1991). Employees tend to like the
rater can observe are limited, the result can
notion of having administrative actions
be an &dquo;unrepresentative sample&dquo; of a given
based on merit (deLeon & Ewen 1997; Fox,
employee’s or a given manager’s perfor-
1991). Human resource professionals are
mance (see McCall, Morrison &
Hannan,
drawn to the rationality that appraisals
1978 as cited in Mount, 1984).
promise to provide to administrative deci-
In an effort to remedy this situation,
sions (McEvoy, 1990), and the use of per-
many organizations are experimenting with
formance appraisal meshes well with
more comprehensive and sophisticated re-
American ideological and cultural norms
view techniques (e.g., &dquo;global&dquo; or 360 de-
such as individualism, high need for
gree performance evaluation, team apprais-
achievement, and devotion to just rewards
als, peer appraisals, and subordinate apprais-
(Daley, 1992; Fox, 1991).
als) .2 Common to these approaches is the
Despite its appeal, the operational prob-
attempt to incorporate multiple perspec-
lems associated with traditional, top-down
tives on performance, with the desired re-
performance appraisals have been well-docu-
sult being more comprehensive, accurate,
mented (e.g., Bowman, 1994; Bernardin &
and useful performance appraisals.
68

---

Achieving more comprehensive and
Unique Perspectives
meaningful appraisals for public managers
In order to appreciate the allure of sub-
would seem to be a particularly important
ordinate appraisals, one needs only to rec-
goal at this point in time. This is due to
ognize the unique and critical perspectives
the increasingly important organizational
afforded subordinates by the positions they
role public managers are being called upon
occupy within organizations-positions
to play. The Winter Commission (1993),
that normally put them in direct contact
for example, favors expanding managerial
with their supervisors (Bernardin & Beatty,
authority by moving to a &dquo;trust and lead&dquo;
1987). As such, there is likely no one more
approach to public administration. Simi-
intimately aware of a manager’s perfor-
larly, &dquo;reinvented government&dquo; (Osborne &
mance than his or her immediate subordi-
Gaebler, 1992) and &dquo;deregulated govern-
nates. Besides their proximity to the ac-
ment&dquo; (e.g., Horner, 1988; Wilson, 1989;
tual work of managers, the types of behav-
Kelman, 1990; DiIulio, 1994) place greater
ior subordinates observe can be quite dif-
responsibility (and faith) in the abilities of
ferent from what is seen by supervisors,
public managers. With such heightened
peers, or external customers. Thus, subor-
expectations, the need to evaluate mana-
dinates are in an excellent position to pro-
gerial performance would seem to follow
vide unique information to the appraisal
quite logically, and subordinate appraisals
process (McEvoy, 1990, p. 202). For ex-
offer a promising tool toward that end.
ample, subordinates are especially qualified
Unfortunately, public organizations have
to observe (and evaluate) managers on fac-
made rather limited use of subordinate ap-
tors such as leadership and the effective del-
praisals and, as a consequence, we know
egation of skill-enhancing work (Bernardin
relatively little about their practical aspects
& Beatty,1987;
Mount, 1984, p. 699). This
(Daley, 1992, p. 32; Mount, 1984). This
&dquo;unique information,&dquo; quite simply, is lost
article seeks to contribute to our knowledge
in evaluation systems that neglect subordi-
by highlighting one state agency’s experi-
nates’ input. The result, therefore, can be
ences with subordinate appraisals. Specifi-
a less than complete appraisal of manage-
cally, the article will discuss several general
rial performance.
benefits of subordinate appraisals, then-
using the case of a state agency-it will
Reliability
describe important issues and obstacles fac-
In addition to helping create more rep-
ing organizations that utilize subordinate
resentative evaluations, subordmate ap-
appraisals.
praisals may also increase the reliability of
performance ratings. Given that several
Subordinate Appraisals of Managers
subordinates will normally be involved in
Why would an organization want to use
the rating process,’ the average of their
subordinate appraisals? What do such ap-
evaluations is likely to be a more reliable
praisals offer above and beyond the infor-
rating than could be achieved by any single
mation gleaned from traditional top-down
rater (McEvoy, 1990, p. 698; McEvoy, 1988;
evaluations? This section will attempt to
Mount, 1984).
answer these fundamental questions by dis-
cussing some positive characteristics of sub-
ordinate appraisals.
69

---

Defensible Rationale
In sum, subordmate appraisals offer a
Subordinate assessments, like other
means for uniquely situated employees to
multiple rater evaluation systems, are ad-
provide relevant, yet often neglected, in-
vantageous to organizations from a legal
formation about managerial performance.
standpoint. Organizations, both public and
Subordmate appraisals conducted with care
private, operate in an environment where
and forethought can enhance the reliabil-
an adverse administrative action can often
ity and completeness of performance evalu-
serve as a precursor to litigation. Given this
ations, offer a defensible rationale for em-
reality, many organizations find themselves
ployment actions, and provide valuable or-
in the position of needing to create a &dquo;de-
ganizational feedback.
fensible rationale&dquo; for their personnel deci-
sions (McEvoy, 1990, p. 211). As Bemardin
A
Caveat
and Beatty (1987, p. 69) point out, &dquo;[T]he
Despite their potential benefits, many
case law regarding performance appraisals
managers and subordinates remain skepti-
and personnel decisions strongly supports
cal of subordinate appraisals (Bernardin,
the use of more than one rater whenever
Dahmus &
Redmon, 1993, p. 316). For
performance judgments are made to pro-
managers, this skepticism centers primarily
mote, demote, discharge, or determine
on subordinates’ capacity to provide accu-
merit pay&dquo; (see also Bernardin & Cascio,
rate evaluations (e.g., Do subordinates have
1987). Thus, a subordinate appraisal ap-
the aptitude, tramng, and information
proach, which provides multiple evaluation
needed to provide valid appraisals? Are
sources, can be seen as an effective step m
subordmates reliable raters for all manage-
creating a defensible rationale.
rial activities?) and their willingness to do
so (e.g., Will subordmates pander to their
...