Abstract
Supervisors and employees hold consistently negative impressions of the performance management (PM) process in most organizations. In this chapter, we propose that some of the uneven outcomes related to this important human resource process may be due to factors related to the supervisor; ones they may not even be aware of. We review the extant literature on some factors related to the supervisor: implicit person theory (IPT) and commitment to performance management. In addition, we review some relatively new research, which examines the role of the supervisor in providing feedback in the PM process. Specifically, we integrate the growing evidence that supervisors who report an incremental IPT are more likely to engage in positive PM behaviors such as providing support, giving elaborative feedback, and initiating more coaching behaviors. Moreover, employees of these supervisors report more positive perceptions of these processes. We also introduce a new construct, commitment to performance management, and develop theory about how considering affective, normative, and continuous commitment toward performance management may predict differential PM behaviors that supervisors initiate. For instance, supervisors who are affectively committed (e.g. really believe in the value and importance of PM) are much more likely to engage in the best practices associated with PM than supervisors who are continuously committed (e.g., only completing PM practices because there would be a cost to not participate). Finally, we review some recently published research that focuses on the actual content of the feedback and conversation exchanged between supervisors and employees (Meinecke et al. J Leadersh Org Stud 24:230, 2017; Meinecke et al. J Appl Psychol 102:1054, 2017; Schaerer et al. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 144:171:2018). Moreover, we integrate these findings within the frameworks of IPT and commitment to performance management and identify some potentially interesting new streams of research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Antonioni, D., & Park, H. (2001). The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Management, 27(4), 479–495.
Asmuß, B. (2008). Performance appraisal interviews: Preference organization in assessment sequences. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 408–429.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.
Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19–30.
Clifton, J. (2012). Conversation analysis in dialogue with stocks of interactional knowledge: Facework and appraisal interviews. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 283–311.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader–member exchange in the performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32, 531–551.
Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 371–377.
Gosserand, R. H., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2005). Emotional display rules and emotional labor: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1256–1264.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.
Heslin, P. A., Latham, G. P., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 842–856.
Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). Self-regulation derailed: Implicit person theories and feedback-seeking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2011). Performance appraisal procedural justice: The role of a manager’s implicit person theory. Journal of Management, 37, 1694–1718.
Heslin, P. A., VandeWalle, D., & Latham, G. P. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’ implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59, 871–902.
Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Children’s thinking about traits: Implications for judgments of the self and others. Child Development, 69, 391–403.
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 588–5Fsi99.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 80–105.
Kam, C., Risavy, S. D., Perunovic, E., & Plant, L. (2014). Do subordinates formulate an impression of their manager's implicit person theory? Applied Psychology, 63, 267–299.
Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 708–723.
Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Implicit theory measures: Reliability and validity data for adults and children. New York: Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
Medvedeff, M., Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P. E. (2008). How attributes of the feedback message affect subsequent feedback seeking: The interactive effects of feedback sign and type. Psychologica Belgica, 48, 109–125.
Meinecke, A. L., Klonek, F. E., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). Appraisal participation and perceived voice in annual appraisal interviews: Uncovering contextual factors. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 24, 230–245.
Meinecke, A. L., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). What happens during annual appraisal interviews? How leader–follower interactions unfold and impact interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1054–1074.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Advanced topics in organizational behavior: Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.
Nathan, B. R., Mohrman, A. M., & Milliman, J. (1991). Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 352–369.
Nease, A. A., Mudgett, B. O., & Quiñones, M. A. (1999). Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 806–814.
Neubert, M. J., & Cady, S. H. (2001). Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54, 421–448.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Farh, J. L. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 45–67.
Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results. Singapore: Wiley.
Pulakos, E. D., Hanson, R. M., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 51–76.
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 146–164.
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17, 3–20.
Schaerer, M., Kern, M., Berger, G., Medvec, V., & Swaab, R. I. (2018). The illusion of transparency in performance appraisals: When and why accuracy motivation explains unintentional feedback inflation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 171–186.
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 165–184.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 251–270.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47–71.
Wang, E. (2016). Interaction effect of manager’s implicit person theory and perceived performance management purpose on their commitment to performance management, Master’s Thesis Completed at IUPUI.
Wang, X. M., Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. (2010). The roles of rater goals and ratee performance levels in the distortion of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 546–561.
Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Investigating some neglected criteria: The influence of organizational level and perceived system knowledge on appraisal reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(2), 501–513.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 15–32.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Drawbaugh, M.L., Williams, J.R., (Ernie) Wang, E. (2019). A New Look at the Supervisor Role in Performance Management. In: Steelman, L.A., Williams, J.R. (eds) Feedback at Work. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30915-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30915-2_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30914-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30915-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)