WHO EVALUATES?

Source : CUMMINGS, L L. & SCHWAB, DONALD P.

APPRAISAL. SCOTT, FORESMAN & COMPANY

PERFORMANCE IN ORGANIZATIONS: DETERMINANTS &

There are five possible parties that can do the appraising: (1) the superior(s) of the person to be
appraised, (2) organizational peers of the appraisee, (3) the appraisee himself, (4) subordinates of
the appraisee, and (5) persons outside the immediate work environment of the appraisee. Each of
these parties might be appropriate, depending on the purpose (evaluative or developmental) of the
appraisal and the dimensions (either outcome or methods) being appraised.
Figure 1 depicts the full array of possibilities when one combines the two broad purposes of
appraisal with the general dimensions to which appraisal can be applied. There are four possibilities,
corresponding to the four cells of Figure 1.

FIGURE 1
Superior, Peer, Self, and Outside Appraisal in Relation to the Purposes and Dimensions of
Appraisal

Purpose of
Appraisal
Dimension
of Appraisal

Means
(Method Used)

Ends
(Outcomes Achieved)

Evaluation

Development

Superior
Peer
Self
Subordinate
Outsider

Superior
Peer
Self
Subordinate
Outsider

Superior
Peer
Self
Subordinate
Outsider

Superior
Peer
Self
Subordinate
Outsider

Cell 1 shows that appraisal can be utilized to evaluate the methods individuals employ in their jobs.
Illustrative of this would be an examination and appraisal of whether a salesman is following the

Who Evaluates

prescribed procedure in illustrating the functioning of his product to a prospective customer. Cell 2
refers to the fact that appraisals many focus on evaluating whether desired outcomes were
achieved. For example, in a sales context, was a sale made? or How much was sold?
Cell 3 indicates that appraisal may be used to assist the employee in improving the method he uses
to perform his job. For example, this might involve aiding a salesman in correcting what is thought
to be a crucial mistake or omission in his sales presentation. He may be attempting to close the sale
too quickly, thereby generating resistance by the customer and losing the sales opportunity. The
focus of the appraisal here would be on assisting the salesman in (1) seeing the consequences of his
overly aggressive approach, (2) providing him with more appropriate models to imitate, and (3)
allowing him to practice his new response.
Cell 4 shows that appraisals can focus directly on the development of the ends or outcome to be
achieved on the job. Illustrative of this use of appraisals would be an attempt to provide the
salesman with feedback concerning his past goal accomplishment. As a part of this process he might
be encouraged to establish outcome goals for the next performance period. Here the focus is on
the motivating force that comes from (1) participating in the setting of ones own goals, and (2)
publicly committing oneself to these goals.
We shall now integrate the issues raised to this point by discussing the advantages and
disadvantages of having each of the five parties engage in the appraisal process. This discussion
will involve both normative issues and empirical issues where research findings are available to aid
us in assessing the value of having various parities engage in various types of appraisal activities.

SUPERVISORY APPRAISAL
There are two primary justifications for centering the appraisal process in the performers
superior. The hierarchy of formal authority which exists in most organizations legitimates the
right of the superior to make both evaluative and developmental decisions concerning his
subordinates. Indeed, it is his duty and obligation. To behave otherwise would violate the
expectations of his own superior as well as those of most of his subordinates. In addition, the
superior generally controls the magnitude and scheduling of many of the rewards and punishments
received by his subordinates. To the extent that performance is enhanced when rewards are based
on performance, the appraisal and reward-punishment power should be in the same hands. To
separate these is to undercut the legitimacy of the appraisal process itself and/or the reward
power of the superior.
The literature on appraisal suggests that the appraisal can be made more valid by the use of several
superiors, at the same organizational level or at successive levels. This is true because it is unlikely
that even the immediate superior will observe all the relevant dimensions of a subordinates
behavior or that he will weigh these dimensions in the same way as higher levels of management, in
terms of their contribution to overall organizational goals.
A caution is appropriate however. There is evidence that the immediate supervisors appraisal is
highly related to the average evaluations across several appraisers and to objective measures of

Who Evaluates

performance. This suggests that an appraisal by the immediate supervisor may function adequately
in the absence of other assessments.
Several potential liabilities of appraisal by the superior have been studied and discussed in the
literature. First, being appraised by a reward-and-punishment controller may threaten and
subordinate. Moreover, the appraisal communication process often tends to flow only from the
superior to the subordinate so that the latter feels he must defend himself and justify his actions.
Often, little coaching and development seem to transpire.
In addition, the superior frequently feels uncomfortable in the appraisal role because: (1) the role
demand skills which he does not possess, (2) he has an ethical objection to playing God, (3)
communication of negative appraisals may alienate subordinates, or (4) he realizes that in some
cases the superior does not have sufficient reward and-punishment power to implement the results
of an appraisal even if he does a thorough job of it. As a consequence, the superior often avoids
conducting the appraisal.
These potential liabilities have led some organizations to incorporate other persons in the appraisal
process, such as subordinates peers, self, and outsiders. Some organizations have also suggested
that appraisals not be used for evaluation at all, but solely for purposes of development.

PEER APPRAISAL
Two considerations would seem to facilitate the effective use of peer appraisals: (1) a high level of
interpersonal trust and sharing among peers, coupled with a noncompetitive reward system, and (2)
situations where information about the appraisees performance methods or outcomes are uniquely
available to his peers. Peer appraisals are most frequently used in highly professional organizations
where the above two conditions are most likely to be true; for example, among professors in
universities, among physicians in clinics, or among scientists in industrial organizations.
Research on peer appraisals has shown them to be predictive of success or correlated with both
objective and other subjective evaluations of success in naval flight training and performance,
military officer performance, scholastic performance, field sales performance, performance as a
first-level manufacturing supervisor, and middle-management performance.
This being the case peer evaluation may be an appropriate alternative to supervisory evaluations,
when one wants to reduce the threat associated with the status differentials and social distance
built into the typical review by the superior. This in turn may act as a force toward honesty and
open communication between the appraiser and the appraisee. Peer evaluations may also be
appropriate when the supervisor is unable to effectively observe the behavior of his subordinates.
Peer appraisal and subsequent discussion may also be useful in uncovering communication and
coordination problems among members of a work team.
Mutual expectations and task
interdependencies may be clarified so that self-control becomes more feasible.

Who Evaluates

There are also several potential liabilities associated with the use of peer appraisals. First, their
value may be depreciated by the competitive nature of many organizational reward systems. A winlose game among peers tends to inhibit honesty in evaluating perceived rivals. In addition, a highly
competitive organizational reward system should suggest a caution of a different nature in the use
of peers for appraisal. Such systems place an employee, when requested to evaluate his peers, into
one or more of several possible psychological conflicts. For example, conflicts may arise between
evaluating ones peer highly and maximizing ones own chances of a large salary increase or between
evaluating him poorly and maintaining his friendship. It is for such reasons that peer appraisals
have been found invalid, or even disruptive, in some organization.

SELF-APPRAISAL
Self-appraisals appear justified where there are strong reasons to believe that the performer
himself is in the best position to observe and evaluate his own methods of work and outcome; for
example, where the performer is working under conditions of extreme physical isolation or is the
unique possessor of a rare skill.
The most visible thrust for self-appraisals, however, comes from the trend, beginning in the 1960s,
toward the use of a developmental focus or theme in performance evaluation. This theme places
major emphasis on the personal growth, self-motivation, and organizational potential of the
employee. Thus self-appraisals become an integral part of the feedback process to the employee.
Several positive results have been found to be associated with self-appraisal, including (1) more
satisfying and constructive appraisal interviews, (2) less defensiveness by performers regarding the
appraisal interviews as well as the overall appraisal process, and (3) improved job performance.
These advantages have to be countered by the evidence indicating several problems associated with
the use of self-appraisals. First, several studies have found low agreement between self and
supervisory appraisals. These disagreements may pertain to the definition of the dimensions of the
performers job, the relative importance of the dimensions and the performers achievements on
these dimensions. In general, subordinates tend to evaluate their performance more favorably than
do their superiors. Second, there is evidence to indicate that managers who overevaluate
themselves, relative to their superiors evaluations, tend to be judged as less promotable than their
counterparts. This implies that the very persons who could befit the most from developmental
efforts are those who disagree with their superiors about their performance and may, therefore,
be least likely to receive such development.
Third, there is some evidence indicating that what is evaluated influences the amount of agreement
between the evaluated influences the amount of agreement between the superiors and the
subordinates appraisals. Greater superior-subordinate agreement tends to be achieved when
evaluating task-related (performance) characteristics than on personality and interpersonal
characteristics. This may be because of the greater availability of behavioral anchors for such
task-related characteristics on the job.

Who Evaluates

In sum, it would appear that self-appraisals are effective tools for programs focusing on selfdevelopment, personal growth, and goal commitment. On the other hand, it would also appear that
self-appraisals are subject to systematic biases and distortions when used for evaluative purposes.
As a final point, it should be noted that whether good or bad, some form of self-perception and
self-appraisal is inevitable. Most employees can be expected to walk into a performance review
session with their superior with some preconceived notion of how they feel they have performed.
Disagreements between the superiors perceptions and those of the performer can (and should)
form the basis for important discussions and, possibly, developmental efforts.

APPRAISAL BY SUBORDINATES
In most organizations the explicit appraisal of a superior by his subordinates would be perceived as
unusual, or perhaps even illegitimate. There are circumstances, however, when subordinate
appraisals can be useful. Some organizations utilize anonymous subordinate evaluations as one of
several inputs into the development process for their managers. Knowing how one is perceived by
his subordinates can be an important, although potentially stressful, ingredient into the change of a
superiors behavior. Occasionally, organizations will utilize subordinate appraisals for purposes of
assessing the leadership potential of their lower-level managers.
Some organizations have also encouraged subordinate appraisals of their superiors as a means of
creating an atmosphere of power equalization and involvement on the part of lower organizational
levels. A variation on this approach involved a program in a pharmaceutical firm (Cummings, in
press) which had a group of operative employees aid in the development of an appraisal system in
items of defining performance dimensions, scales, and items. This involvement resulted in increased
perceptions of clarity and meaningfulness regarding the appraisal process, as well as a closer
perceived link between performance and pay.
There are, however, several significant disadvantages of bottoms up appraisal. Studies have
shown, for example, that some subordinates perceive it as illegitimate. They view a request to
formally appraise their boss as threatening; that is, the boss may reprimand them for an honest,
but unfavorable, appraisal. Of course, many superiors also view the process with suspicion.
Subordinate appraisals tend to undermine the superiors legitimate, positional power, as well as his
reward and-punishment power.
Finally, there is the distinct possibility that the subordinate may base his evaluation on something
other than the superiors contribution to the organization. There is some evidence to indicate that
the subordinate will focus primarily on the extent to which his superior fulfills the subordinates
needs rather than on the organizational accomplishments of the superior. Ideally, these two foci
would not be in conflict, but the possibility of inconsistency leads most organizations to exercise
caution in the use of subordinate appraisals.

Who Evaluates

APPRAISAL BY OUTSIDERS
Organizations sometimes utilize specialists from the personnel department with expertise in
performance assessment, and also external consultants (most likely psychologists), to engage in the
appraisal process. Two general conditions would suggest the use of such outsiders: (1) need for
specialized expertise, either as a trained observer or in a substantive content area, and (2) where
the objectivity of the appraisal process can be insured only through appraisal by someone without a
vested interest in the outcomes of the appraisal (e.g., as in the case of a C.P.A. firm testifying to
the general acceptance of the principles used in the financial statements of a client firm).
There is an increasing amount of evidence suggesting that persons outside of the superiorsubordinate-peer triad can make valuable contributions to the selection of managers for increased
responsibility. Most of this evidence is found in the literature and in practice under the rubric of
the assessment center approach to managerial selection and promotion.
One type of outside appraisal, usually referred to as the field review focuses on the evaluation of
performance for purposes of administering organizational rewards and punishments. In this
technique, a specialist from the personnel department interviews the superior(s) of the persons
being evaluated. The focus of the interview is on the job content and job performance of the
subordinate. The specialist typically summarizes the interview content into a general, overall
assessment which is then discussed with the superior and possibly modified as a result of this
discussion. The resulting appraisal becomes a part of the subordinates personnel file. It may or
may not be discussed with the subordinate.
Many managers find this use of an outside appraiser attractive since they feel it will save them
time and will partially allow them to escape a distasteful chore. The other advantage frequently
cited for this type of appraisal is that it reduces the variance in evaluations due to different
appraisers using different dimensions and standards of performance. Presumably, the specialist
utilizes a common frame of reference across similar jobs and situations.
There are several serve disadvantages to this approach. First, it encourages the superior to avoid
an essential part of his managerial responsibility. Second, it is questionable whether meaningful
conversations will take place between a superior and his subordinates about performance
improvement if the evaluation process is conducted by an outside party. Third, it is inefficient to
the extent that at least two representatives of management must spend time doing each appraisal.
From an organizational point of view, what started out as a time-saver may end up consuming
additional time and manpower.

SUMMARY
Organizational practice and empirical evidence would indicate that, most typically, the appraisal
process is conducted by the immediate superior of the performer. The perceived threats and
stress associated with this procedure as well as other problems have led some organizations to use
peer, self, subordinate, and outside sources of appraisal. Appraisal by a performers peers appears
to be appropriate under conditions of high interpersonal trust, high visibility of performance to

Who Evaluates

peers, and intensely specialized skills and abilities. Self-appraisal has been found useful where
personal development is the goal and where a psychological acceptance of the appraisal is necessary
to generate change by the appraisee. Appraisal by a managers subordinates is helpful when the
aims are the development of the managers insight into how others see him and change in this
behavior as a supervisor. Generally, subordinate appraisal is perceived with suspicion by superiors
and some subordinates. Evaluation by outsiders is increasingly used in assessment for selection and
in the identification of possible long-term managerial talent. The field review by a personnel
specialist can be useful as an evaluation technique, but may encourage the manager to neglect his
basic responsibility to review the performance of his subordinates systematically and to discuss his
review with them.

Who Evaluates