Organizational Behaviour Comportement Organisationnel

ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaLisa M. KeepingWilfrid Laurier UniversityDouglas J. BrownUniversity of WaterlooSELF-RATINGS AND APPRAISAL REACTIONS: IS WHAT YOU PERCEIVE BASEDON WHAT YOU EXPECT?The current study examined the benefits of incorporating self-ratings into the appraisalprocess. Results suggested that (a) the inclusion of self-ratings enhanced employeereactions relative to a no self-rating group, and (b) the positive benefits of self-ratingswere dependent upon employees’ expectations that their ratings would be utilized by theirmanagers.Multirater or 360-degree appraisal systems have grown in use to become a popular meansof assessing employee performance in organizations (Cheung, 1999; Fletcher, 1999). Multiratersystems involve the evaluation of an employee’s performance from a variety of different sourcessuch as the self, peers, supervisors, subordinates, and customers. Fletcher suggests that oneimplication of the increased use of multirater systems is an increase in the frequency of selfappraisals.This makes sense given that the one component of multirater systems that is alwaysavailable across organizations is the self-rating component.Research regarding self-appraisals has found that self-ratings typically do not correlatehighly with either supervisor or peer ratings, and thus have generally been perceived as lenient(Fletcher, 1999; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). Despite their apparent leniency in many situations,however, self-appraisals have been advocated due to a number of potential advantages associatedwith them. For example, proponents of self-appraisals argue that no one is more aware of aratee’s performance on the job than the ratee. Thus, employees are better equipped to rate theirown performance because they are more knowledgeable about their own performance than aretheir supervisors (Riggio & Cole, 1992). It is also believed that self-appraisals may reducesubordinate ambiguity regarding performance standards and managerial expectations (Farh,Werbel, & Bedeian, 1988). In addition, self-appraisals have been found to increase rateeparticipation in the appraisal interview (Farh et al., 1988), which may make ratees morecommitted to performance goals and more accepting of criticism (Riggio & Cole, 1992).In addition to the above, correlational findings suggest that incorporating self-appraisals,or at least allowing a subordinate to voice his/her feelings as part of the appraisal, has been foundto promote greater supervisor and subordinate perceptions of fairness, accuracy, acceptance, andsatisfaction with the appraisal process, as well as increasing subordinates’ motivation to improveperformance (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998; Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Farh et al.,1988; Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, 1978). Experimental findings have also indicated that theincorporation of self-appraisals and their subsequent discussion in an appraisal interview canimprove participants’ reactions in an evaluation context (DeGregorio & Fisher, 1988). Selfappraisalshave also been found to increase communication between supervisors and subordinatesas well as increase employees’ sense of control, both of which are important aspects of perceivedprocedural justice and fairness (Farh et al., 1988; Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Thus, it appearsthat overall, self-appraisals have been widely endorsed for the variety of advantages associatedwith their use (Korsgaard, 1996).106