performance appraisal interviews

5 downloads 0 Views 316KB Size Report
Scott and Einstein (2001) consider how work in teams affects ...... H. Alrø & M. Kristiansen (Eds.), Dialog og magt i organisationer [Dialogue and power in ...
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS Preference Organization in Assessment Sequences Birte Asmuß University of Aarhus

Performance appraisal interviews play a crucial role in internal communication. Most of the research on performance appraisal interviews has focused on strategic aims and interview design, but less attention has been given to the way in which performance appraisal interviews actually take place. In this study, the focus will, therefore, be to investigate how one of the crucial and most delicate activities in performance appraisal interviews, namely, giving critical feedback, is conducted. The way critical feedback is given is predominantly through negative assessments. The results indicate that there is an orientation to critical feedback as a socially problematic action despite the institutional character of the talk. Moreover, it can be seen that the more the supervisor shows an orientation to negative assessments as being socially problematic, the more difficult it becomes for the employee to deal with negative assessments. The study ends by outlining various implications for the workplace. Keywords: internal communication; performance appraisal interviews; assessments; preference; conversation analysis

Even though external communication still remains the main focus in organizations, more and more organizations realize the importance of internal communication for increased organizational performance (GolserWamser, 2005). As a result of this increased focus on internal communication, institutions and organizations now invest more and more resources in evaluating employee performance and providing opportunities for employee development. One of the main tools used in this connection is the performance appraisal interview. In this article, the term performance

Birte Asmuß (PhD, University of Aarhus, 1999) is an associate professor at the Centre for Corporate Communication, Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, in Denmark. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Birte Asmuß, Centre for Corporate Communication, Department of Language and Business Communication, Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Aarhus V, Denmark; e-mail: [email protected]. Journal of Business Communication, Volume 45, Number 4, October 2008 408-429 DOI: 10.1177/0021943608319382 © 2008 by the Association for Business Communication

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

409

appraisal interviews means recurrent strategic interviews between a superior in an organization and an employee that focus on employee performance and development. Other terms used to cover this kind of interview are employee performance appraisal, job appraisal interview, employee review, and employee appraisal. The current study focuses on how performance appraisal interviews are conducted, thereby providing unique insight into a kind of data that has rarely been investigated in great detail before. More specifically, the study will focus on a crucial activity in performance appraisal interviews: negative feedback. The way negative feedback is given is predominantly through negative assessments, which represent a socially problematic action according to research on ordinary talk-in-interaction (Pomerantz, 1984).

LITERATURE REVIEW

As a result of a growing organizational focus on the importance of performance appraisal interviews for employee performance and development, there have been an increasing number of studies dealing with issues related to performance appraisal interviews in recent years. Detailed consideration of a large number of these studies would be beyond the scope of this article, but a glance at the literature on this subject reveals a focus on three main areas. One major group of studies focuses on the relationship between performance appraisal interviews and added organizational value. These studies indicate that what happens during the actual interview has an impact on organizational value. Fletcher (2001) discusses the impact of contextual changes for performance appraisal interviews such as cultural differences and new technology. This study is paralleled by Soltani (2005), who highlights the importance of a tight correlation between organizational culture and strategy, on the one hand, and the design of performance appraisal tools on the other. Laird and Clampitt (1985) deal with problems of ratings insofar as unclear objectives for effective performance coincide with unclear communication to employees about the objectives of performance appraisal. Scott and Einstein (2001) consider how work in teams affects performance appraisal interviews, as well as discussing how to evaluate teamwork in individual performance appraisal interviews. Another group of studies addresses the relationship between performance appraisal interviews and employee satisfaction. These studies show that the interview itself, employee rating systems, and interpersonal relations all play a crucial role in job satisfaction. Mani (2002) points out a gap Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

410

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

between an employee’s dissatisfaction with a performance appraisal system and a supervisor’s satisfaction with it. Roberts (2002) highlights the importance of the appraisal interview for employee satisfaction as one crucial attribute of an effective performance appraisal system. He concludes that only the interview can give insight into the employee’s voice and provide valuable information. Gabris and Ihrke (2001) demonstrate a close relationship between employee burnout and employee perceptions of the performance appraisal interview, and Nathan, Mohrman, and Millman (1991) and Poon (2004) address the importance of the supervisor’s role in the appraisal interview for job satisfaction: Nathan et al. (1991) document the role of interpersonal relations between the supervisor and the employee with regard to the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and job satisfaction. Poon shows the effects of employees’ perceptions of political motives in performance appraisal interviews on job satisfaction. Last but not least, there are a huge number of studies dealing with questions of “best practice” in performance appraisal interviews (e.g., Allen, 2000; Fellinger, 2005; Grote, 2000; Losyk, 2002; Mikkelsen, 2002; Neuberger, 1998). These studies rely mainly on personal experience, interviews with supervisors1 and employees, and analysis of preparation forms for the performance appraisal interview and evaluation sheets. They establish guidelines for managers on how to successfully conduct performance appraisal interviews. In doing so, they focus on the role of one of the participants alone, namely, the supervisor, as the person who is in charge of the interview. This starting point is a critical one, as it does not regard the interview as a joint achievement by both participants. As a result, an important aspect of the interview, namely, its interactive character, is not taken into account. This emphasis might mean that although many of the guidelines might work well in theory, they will be difficult to use in real life. The studies mentioned above contribute significantly to our understanding of the conditions surrounding performance appraisal interviews, but they do not reveal anything about what actually happens when the supervisor and the employee meet in a performance appraisal interview. One could say that there is a current focus on “before” and “after” the performance appraisal interview (here specifically on the strategic dimension, interview guide design, and follow-up of performance appraisal interviews) but that there is also a substantial lack of knowledge about what actually happens during the performance appraisal interview itself. Weick (2004) points out that “organization does not precede communication or is communication produced by organization. Instead, organization emerges through communication” (p. 408). This viewpoint is in line with one of the core assumptions of the method applied in this article, conversation analysis, Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

411

namely, that participants in interaction recurrently negotiate about the context of the ongoing talk and thereby shape the organization itself (see the section on methodology). This emergent perspective on organizations highlights the necessity to take a closer look at the communication that takes place within organizations in order to understand the organizations themselves. Furthermore, this perspective points to the importance of the company acting strategically when designing and carrying out performance appraisals in order to meet the need for effective corporate communication. Some of the few studies that are based on the analysis of authentic performance appraisal interviews reveal why it is relevant to investigate both strategy and the actual performance appraisal interview. Studies by Frimann (2004) and Scheuer (2001) show that there is a gap between theory and practice with regard to time consumption in performance appraisal interviews. They show that even though guidelines for performance appraisal interviews suggest that the employee should be given the opportunity to talk most of the time, it is the supervisor who talks most. This uneven distribution of talking time does not appear in all parts of the performance appraisal interview: It becomes especially dominant in the phases of the performance appraisal interview that concern the employee’s future plans for competence development. As highlighted by the authors of the above two studies, this circumstance has to be seen as problematic because it is in these phases of the performance appraisal interview that the employee should define his or her needs for and interests in the future job situation. Studies like these indicate the need for closer investigation of the actual performance appraisal interview with a view to evaluating existing guidelines on best practice and ensuring a close connection between the strategic placement of performance appraisal interviews within the organization and the actual holding of the performance appraisal interview.

. . . participants in interaction recurrently negotiate about the context of the ongoing talk and thereby shape the organization itself.

The current study can be seen as a contribution to this ongoing line of research. As the data for the current study come from one specific national setting, namely, Denmark, it may be debatable whether this limits the results to this specific national context. As the number of studies on Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

412

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

authentic performance appraisal interviews is very limited, it is difficult to make generalizations on the basis of one single study. However, it is worthwhile considering that the focus on the microanalytical details of the interaction might reduce the impact of linguistic or cultural-specific aspects. Moreover, the performance appraisal interviews in this study come from a company with global activities, which has a major focus on employee development. Consequently, the way the performance appraisal interviews are conducted here might reflect the company’s global strategic aims rather than representing characteristics of a specific national context. Nevertheless, it is important to conduct further research on these topics in order to clarify cultural and linguistic impact on performance appraisal interviews.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The method applied in this study is conversation analysis. Conversation analysis was developed in the 1960s by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (Sacks, 1992; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). The purpose of conversation analysis is to reveal the underlying regularities of talk-in-interaction to which participants in everyday conversation orient. It does so by focusing on communicative activities as ongoing, joint interactional achievements of the participants involved (Stubbe et al., 2003, p. 354). As Clifton (2006) highlights, the use of conversation analysis as an established research method in the field of business communication is still limited. But specific characteristics of conversation analysis make the method especially relevant for the study of business communication. One of the characteristics of conversation analysis is the notion of context. Conversation analysis does not assume context as an exogenous stable entity (Stubbe et al., 2003, p. 355). Instead, it operates with a dynamic notion of context, namely, the notion of “context-shaped” and “context-renewing” (Heritage, 1984, p. 242). This means that the context and hence the company or organization involved shape the interaction by providing a specific setting, sets of norms, and cultural features. At the same time, participants in interaction recurrently negotiate about their understanding of the company or organization, and thereby they permanently contribute to shaping and redefining the context. As a result, context becomes a dynamic entity that is subject to an ongoing negotiation in interaction (Boden, 1994, p. 15ff.). Another advantage of conversation analysis for the study of business communication is, according to Clifton (2006, p. 216), “CA’s [conversation analysis’s] bottom-up, data-driven approach,” which enables a focus on Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

413

studying how specific workplace identities such as leadership are enacted in conversation. In this way, conversation analysis helps researchers to understand the dynamics of workplace interaction, where talk plays a crucial role for (re)establishing and defining roles, identities, and relationships. Conversation analysis can provide valuable insights into how specific workrelevant activities are enacted and negotiated in conversation. The conversation analysis approach in the current study makes it possible to investigate how a socially problematic activity, namely, giving negative feedback, is negotiated in the performance appraisal interview itself. The fine-grained analysis reveals that the participants in the performance appraisal interview dynamically construct each other’s identity and relationships toward each other, despite the fact that they are also talking about work-relevant factual aspects. They do this by mutually orienting toward the way the supervisor launches the critical feedback. In this way, the conversation analysis approach helps to understand the dynamics and complexity of this relevant workplace activity. A conversation analysis approach, with its focus on microanalytical details of interaction, makes it necessary to cover interactional features of the interview in great detail. As a result, conversation analysis transcripts have specific transcription symbols that will be briefly introduced here. A detailed overview of all the transcription symbols can be found in the appendix. The most important aspects of the transcripts concern turn taking and turn emphasis. With regard to questions of turn taking, overlap is marked in square brackets ([ ]), a sign of equality indicates that two utterances are latched (=), and pauses within a turn or between two different turns are marked in seconds (0.5), below 0.2 seconds: (.). With regard to turn design, stressed parts of an utterance or word are marked by underlining (job situation), and loud volume is marked by capital letters (JOB situation). In the transcripts, the English version of the original Danish transcript covers only overlap and pausing. The Danish transcription, which is given directly below the English transcription, represents the detailed conversation analysis transcription on which the analysis is based.

Conversation analysis can provide valuable insights into how specific work-relevant activities are enacted and negotiated in conversation.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

414

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

The current study can be seen as one in a line of conversation analysis studies of workplace interaction, starting with the pioneering work of Drew and Heritage (1992). Since then, numerous studies have followed, focusing on various aspects of workplace interaction. There are studies of various workplace settings (Asmuß & Steensig, 2003) and studies of specific institutional settings, such as doctor-patient interaction (e.g. Heritage & Stivers, 1999; Maynard & Heritage, 2005; Peräkylä, 2002), telephone interaction (Baker, Emmison, & Firth, 2005; Rasmussen & Wagner, 2002), meetings (Firth, 1995; Housley, 2000), and standardized interview survey interaction (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 2002; Maynard, HoutkoopSteenstra, Schaeffer, & van der Zouwen, 2002). There are no conversation analysis studies on performance appraisal interviews. The few studies dealing with the actual interview in performance appraisals apply discourse or critical discourse analysis (Frimann, 2004; Scheuer, 2001). In line with the current study’s focus on negative assessments as socially problematic activities, a large number of conversation analysis studies have dealt with the way in which participants in interaction orient to socially problematic actions such as complaints, offers, accusations, and assessments (Asmuß & Steensig, 2005; Lindström, 2005; Ruusuvuori, 2005). In this connection, the notion of preference (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Lerner, 1996; Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987) is particularly useful in understanding the ongoing activities. Preference in conversation does not refer to a psychological state of mind (Atkinson & Heritage 1984, p. 53). It indicates a relationship between conversational actions where an initiative action makes specific subsequent actions sequentially relevant. If the action that has been made relevant as the next action is performed, this gets oriented to as the preferred action. For instance, an invitation has a preference for acceptance, a greeting for another greeting, and so on. If an action other than the action that was made relevant as the responsive action is produced, it is called a dispreferred action. So whereas preferred actions are designed to align with first actions, dispreferred second actions are designed to disalign with first actions. Dispreferred actions can therefore be seen as socially problematic, since they do not comply with the expectations raised by the first action. Preferred actions are socially unproblematic because they align with the expectations raised by the first action. Preferred and dispreferred actions are characterized by specific turn designs. Preferred actions are usually produced without a pause. They are short and direct and do not show any signs of hesitations, restarts, or repairs.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

415

Dispreferred actions are characterized by significant pauses immediately prior to the utterances, repairs, restarts, intraturn pauses, and other signs of hesitation. Below are two examples of preferred and dispreferred turn design: J: T’s- tsuh beautiful day out isn’t it? L: Yeh it’s jus’ gorgeous. Excerpt A

(Pomerantz, 1984, p. 59)

This is an example of preferred turn design: The first action is an assessment, which calls for agreement. The second action is produced directly after the first action, marking agreement, “yeh,” and thereafter upgrading the assessment by stating “jus’ gorgeous.” The following excerpt is an example of a dispreferred action. As in the previous example, the first action is an assessment, in this case a negative one, namely, that the weather is “dreary”: A: God izn it dreary. (0.6) A: [Y’ know I don’t think B: [.hh- It’s warm though, Excerpt B

(Pomerantz, 1984, p. 61)

Speaker A’s assessment is followed by a 0.6-second delay in response. Subsequently, both speakers start in overlap. The second action by Speaker B is marked by a hesitation in form of an inbreath. Then a second assessment is produced, which downgrades the previous assessment (from “dreary” to “warm”), thereby marking disagreement with the previous first assessment. As in the examples above, most studies on preference have dealt with ordinary conversation and have not taken into consideration aspects such as the context and institutional character of the talk. But some research studies argue that it is important to take contextual aspects into consideration, as the preference structure might be reversed in specific cases. Kotthoff (1993) shows the context sensitivity of preference structures in cases where disagreement has already been established, for example, in disputes. In contexts like these, Kotthoff argues that there is a preference

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

416

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

for disagreement. Arminen (2000) also points to the context sensitivity of institutional interaction. In the following analysis, the notion of preference will be applied in order to consider the way in which critical feedback is performed in performance appraisal interviews more closely. The institutional character of these interviews and the notion of context will be discussed in more detail in the concluding section of the article.

DATA

The performance appraisal interviews that have been included in this study consist of interviews between a supervisor and an employee, so they are two-party conversations. In all cases, the supervisor is the direct superior to the employee concerned. In all, 11 different participants take part in the interviews: 4 supervisors and 7 employees; 3 of the supervisors are male and 1 is female; 3 of the employees are male and 4 of them are female (see Table 1). The performance appraisal interviews take place regularly once a year. The interviews are based on an interview preparation form, which the supervisor and the employee are supposed to fill out prior to the interview. The answers are not sent to the participants but are kept individually and used as a starting point for discussion. All of the performance appraisal interviews take place outside the supervisor’s or the employee’s office in meeting rooms. The data for the current study come from a total of 11 hours of videotaped performance appraisal interviews. It includes seven performance appraisal interviews. Five of the performance appraisal interviews are conducted with salaried employees and two with employees paid on an hourly basis. The length of the performance appraisal interviews varies between 37 minutes for the shortest and 2 hours 35 minutes for the longest—an average of 94 minutes. There are significant differences in the performance appraisal interviews between employees paid on an hourly basis and salaried employees (e.g., with regard to interview length and preparation of the interview preparation form by the employee); but with regard to the current study, no major differences come into play (see Table 1). In accordance with international ethical guidelines (American Psychological Association, 2005), all names, dates, and other items that could lead to recognition of the participants and company involved have been changed in the transcripts and analysis in order to ensure anonymity.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

Table 1.

417

Relationship Between Participants and Interview Length

Interview 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total: 7

Total employees paid on an hourly basis: 2 Total salaried employees: 5

Participants Supervisor A, 么 Employee a, 么 Supervisor B, 么 Employee b, 乆 Supervisor C, 乆 Employee c, 乆 Supervisor A, 么 Employee d, 么 Supervisor D, 么 Employee e, 乆 Supervisor D, 么 Employee f, 么 Supervisor B, 么 Employee g, 乆 2 interviews with employees paid on an hourly basis (2, 7) 5 interviews with salaried employees (1, 3, 4, 5, 6) 4 supervisors (A-D), 7 employees (a-g) 1 supervisor (B) 2 employees (b + g)

3 supervisors (A, C, D) 5 employees (a, c, d, e, f)

Length 2h 35 min 50 min 1h 35 min 2h 5 min 1h 17 min 2h 7 min 37 min 11h 1min (average: 94.3 min)

1h 27 min (average: 43.5 min)

9h 34 min (average: 1h 55 min)

ANALYSIS

The current study concerns assessment sequences, which are sequences in which the supervisor assesses the employee’s performance in some way. This assessment is a crucial activity in performance appraisal interviews, because most of the conversation focuses on evaluating previous performance and discussing future perspectives for the employee concerned. Assessments can be carried out in different ways: positively, negatively, directly, or indirectly. In line with the majority of findings in the data, the focus of the current study will be on negative assessments. There are very few examples of direct negative assessments. Most of the negative Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

418

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

assessments in the data are done indirectly by not addressing the employee himself. They also focus more on the potential for improvement than on the lack of sufficient performance. This focus means that in general the turn design is dispreferred, and thereby the participants show an orientation to negative feedback as being socially problematic. The following analysis contains three excerpts in which different degrees of orientations to negative assessments can be observed. The first section will deal with negative assessments that clearly show the activity as being socially problematic; the other two excerpts show different orientations to negative assessments as being less problematic. Based on the analysis, the concluding section will discuss the following topics: (a) whether there is an orientation to preference organization despite the institutional character of the interview, (b) whether the way the supervisor shows an orientation to socially problematic actions may have an impact on the opportunities the employee has to react to the socially problematic action, and (c) whether an orientation to social problematicity can go along with keeping the turn on the side of the supervisor and thereby limiting the employee’s opportunity to show his or her own understanding of the matter discussed.

The following analysis contains three excerpts in which different degrees of orientations to negative assessments can be observed.

Orientation to Social Problematicity

In many cases (10 of 13), the participants show a clear orientation toward negative assessments as socially problematic activities. This is the case in the following Excerpt 1A, where the supervisor and the employee talk about performance issues. The supervisor starts by announcing that on several occasions the employee has failed to adjust his meeting presentations to match the relevant time frame. The supervisor launches his criticism by first mentioning the topic, namely, “situation-sensitive presentation techniques,” then continuing for several turns by elaborating on a specific occasion when he noticed a lack of adjustment of the employee’s presentation to suit the limited time frame of the meeting. This elaboration leads the supervisor to formulate a positively framed criticism, namely, that the employee might try to improve in this respect. The employee agrees by acknowledging the criticism. Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

419

I I I have like a few things that 1) S: [jeg- jeg- jeg har da: e- e:- et par ting som: 2) E: [( ) 3) S: that I have experienced myself uh hrhr som jeg selv har oplevet (.) æ:: hrhr: 4) S: I have I actually believe this is a term I have invented myself jeg har jo- je- jeg tror nok det=er et begreb jeg har opfundet; 5) S: .hh [I call it situation sensitive presentation technique.a .hh [.hf::

6) E: 7)

(.)

8) E: uhu [hu aha [ha 9) S: [uhu he he uh this is perhaps a l[ittle long isn’t it? [aha he he .h æ det er måske l[idt langt ikk?= 10) E: [æhjh 11) S: 12) E:

but=uh [but it it has much to do with [these there uh =men=æ: (.) [men det- det har meget o' gøre med [de de:r æ: [ha [((nods))

14) S: presentations typically on these [em beb leader meetings right? præsentationer (0.3) typisk på de her [em be ledermøder ikk? 15) E: [((nods)) 16)

(.)

17) S: where there [perhaps is] prepared for a twenty-minute presentation .hh hvor der så (0.5) [måske er] forberedt tyve minutters indlæg 18) E: [( )] 19) S: [and there is just three and a half minutes left, [right? [og der er kun treethalvt minut tilbage [ikkos? 20) E: [hhe [((smiles)) 21) S: and the people sit and shuffle their feet because they’d o:g (.) folk de sidder og tripper fordi de vil egentlig 22) S: rather end the [ mee[ting. gerne æ: videre (.) [(med de[n) 23) E: [yes yes y[es [jo-(.)jo j[o --S continues for 38 more lines accounting for his criticism-61) S: so you know it it it is my impression that there sån- (0.4) altså det=jo- det- det=er (.) at der 62) S: perhaps can be done a little bit more there right? Uhm måske kan gøres en lille smule mere der ikkos? .hhh æh[m:

Excerpt 1A.

Situation-Sensitive Presentation Technique

Note: The first line of the transcript in bold and italics represents the English glossing of the original Danish version, which is printed below in nonbold, nonitalic directly following the English line. The original Danish line covers turn design (overlap, pauses) and prosodic information (emphasis, tone quality) provided by the conversation analysis transcription on which the analysis is based. A detailed overview of transcription symbols can be found in the appendix. S = supervisor, E = employee. a. The speaker uses the term “situation-defined presentation technique” to refer to a way of presenting one’s points that takes contextual features such as time limit into consideration. b. Name of the meeting, which is for a specific team of leaders within the department.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

420

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

The following aspects show the supervisor’s orientation to the produced activity, namely, negative feedback, as a socially problematic action. The supervisor prefaces his criticism by “I have a few things” (l. 1), indicating that the topic raised is one in a series, thereby limiting the focus on the upcoming issue. Then the supervisor accounts for the relevance of his criticism, “I have experienced myself” (l. 2), before it is actually launched. This account helps to postpone the actual criticism. In lines 4 and 5, the supervisor raises a topic rather than directing criticism at the employee, and in line 9 the supervisor produces a disclaimer (“it is perhaps a little long”). He continues for the next 49 lines elaborating on what he means by the topic raised in lines 4 and 5. The criticism itself is not launched until lines 61 and 62 (“there can be done a little bit more”), which is initiated by a concluding “so” (l. 61). The criticism is downgraded (“a little bit”), it has a positive angle (“a little bit more” instead of “not enough”), and it does not address the employee directly. Instead, it is formulated in general terms (“there can be done”). All these features mark the turn as dispreferred and show an orientation by the supervisor to criticism as a socially problematic action. Even though the employee already marks his understanding of the criticism early on by laughter (l. 8), acknowledging the topic (l. 10) nodding (ll. 12, 15), and smiling (l. 20), he does not take over, and the supervisor continues his long preface of the actual criticism. Only when the criticism has been launched in lines 61 and 62 does the employee take over in overlap to acknowledge the criticism (see Excerpt 1B): 63) E:

[it is [jeg

64) E: also my impression that the last har også en: (1.1) en oplevelse (.) at: (0.8) det sidste 65) E: em be leader meeting I [attended there em be ledermøde >jeg [deltog i< der= 66) S: [yeah [ja,= 67) E: there it took too much time. =der tog det for lang tid.

Excerpt 1B

S = supervisor, E = employee.

In lines 63 to 67, the employee marks his agreement with the criticism. He starts by focusing on alignment with the supervisor (“it is also my impression” (l. 63-64)), thereby acknowledging the criticism. Not until line 67 does the employee start to elaborate on his understanding of the criticism, namely, that the presentation took too long.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

421

The way in which the supervisor’s turn is designed shows an orientation to social problematicity, and it seems to have an impact on the employee’s response options: Before the employee is able to address the criticism itself, he needs to negotiate alignment with the supervisor, thereby marking the production of criticism as socially problematic. Not until then does the employee get a chance to show his understanding of the problem raised by the supervisor. In view of the length of the sequence, this is relatively late with regard to gaining valuable insight into the employee’s understanding of the problem and his suggestions about how to solve it. To sum up, two important features of Excerpt 1 are worth noting: First, the supervisor shows an orientation to his production of criticism as a problematic activity by using a dispreferred turn design. He does so despite the institutional character of the talk, which could legitimize such an action as nonproblematic. Second, the orientation to social problematicity by the supervisor makes it difficult for the employee to address the criticism directly, to show his understanding of the problem and to propose solutions to it. Instead, the participant needs to negotiate alignment first, thereby dealing with the delicacy of the activity produced. No Orientation to Social Problematicity

As shown in Excerpt 1, the participants in performance appraisal interviews recurrently orient to negative assessments as a socially problematic action. Excerpt 1 also showed that the supervisor’s orientation to negative feedback as a problematic action makes it difficult for the employee to address the topic directly. The employee has to deal with the supervisor’s orientation to feedback as problematic before he can deal with the criticism itself and show his or her understanding of it. This highlights the supervisor’s crucial role in putting interactional restraints upon the employee. But the participants do not always display such a clear orientation to negative assessments as being socially problematic actions. There are cases in the data (3 of a total of 13) in which the participants do not do so at all— or they may do so to a much smaller extent. In these cases, the supervisor produces his criticism in a more direct way and without clear markers of dispreference. The employee aligns with this orientation and elaborates on the topic directly. The following excerpts (2 and 3) are examples of this. In Excerpt 2, the supervisor points out that the employee should try to show more commitment to her work. The supervisor reformulates this by saying that he is sure that the employee has a lot to contribute. Then the

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

422

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

employee gives an indirect explanation of her behavior by stating that she is sometimes afraid to appear too critical by asking a lot of questions. 1) S: and then I have written it=it it uh it was this og så har jeg skrevet >det=det< det æ: det var det 2) S: there about initiative >I have written< you may very der me:d initiativ >jeg har skrevet< du må godt 3) S: well be a little more visible; være lidt mere synlig; 4)

(0.4)

5) S: I am sure you can Jeg er sikker på du ka::: 6) S: .hh you can contribute with with more also on the .hh du kan bidrage me::d med mere (.) også på det 7) S: strategic level. strategiske niveau. 8)

(2.1)

9) E: .mth I have actually uh some times been .mth jeg har faktisk æ:: >noget gange< (0.2) været 10) E: a little afraid, I asked Peter when we have come lidt bange, >jeg spurgte< peter når vi er kommet 11) E: home from the=department meeting whether I appeared hjem fra: afdelingsmødet .hh om jeg virkede 12) E: too critical [ when asking questions for kritisk såd[an: ved at st- stille spørgsmålstegn: 13) S: [.H YES [.H JA, 14) E: [about something and [til noget og: 15) S: [yes [ja

Excerpt 2.

A Little More Visible

S = supervisor, E = employee.

The criticism is launched directly by the supervisor without prefaces in lines 2 and 3 (“you may very well be a little more visible”). The negative assessment itself is downgraded and (as in Excerpt 1) has a positive angle (“more visible” instead of “too invisible”). It is directly related to the interview guide, and an insertion (“it was this about initiative”) marks the topic as something that is being raised again. In contrast to Excerpt 1, the assessment is directly addressed to the employee (“you,” l. 2, 5, 6), and there are no major hesitations, pauses, or restarts that show an orientation to the activity as being socially problematic. The criticism itself is produced briefly and directly (l. 2 + 3 “you may very well be a little more visible”). After a lack of uptake by the employee in line 4, the supervisor briefly reformulates his previous assessment (l. 6 “you can contribute with more”).

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

423

If we look at the employee’s response to the supervisor’s assessment, it is worth noting that although the employee does not take up the turn until after a pause of 2.1 seconds, she addresses the criticism directly by engaging in a discussion about her current behavior. By not marking her own turn as dispreferred, the employee aligns with the supervisor’s orientation to the activity as unproblematic. Excerpt 2 supports the suggestion made in Excerpt 1, namely, that there is a relationship between the orientation to dispreference by the supervisor and the employee’s opportunity to take up the criticism. When the supervisor orients to the activity as being socially problematic as in Excerpt 1, the employee needs to perform extra interactional work to mark alignment before being able to deal with the criticism itself. When the criticism is expressed more directly as in Excerpt 2, the employee can address it more overtly. In such cases, the supervisor gains direct insight into the employee’s understanding of the problem, which is a relevant objective for mutual employee-supervisor development. As can be seen in Excerpt 3, there are other cases in which the participants do not show orientation to the social problematicity of the negative assessment either. Here, as in Excerpt 2, the assessments are produced relatively directly without significant markers of dispreference. In these cases, the sequential placement of the negative assessment seems to play a crucial role. These instances usually occur at points in the interview at which the supervisor is about to continue to another issue on the agenda. The issue that is negatively assessed has already been discussed, and the supervisor takes up the issue in order to summarize the discussion. So the negative assessment is not a new issue but part of a summary of what has been discussed before. In Excerpt 3, the supervisor starts by stating that he believes that the employee has a lot of good ideas that could be of interest to the company. After a pause, the employee takes over by describing future action, namely, that she will try to become more involved. Then the supervisor laughs and initiates a topic shift (“change process”).

Excerpt 3.

Good Ideas

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

424

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

The criticism here is launched directly without prefaces after a 2.5-second pause (“you have many good ideas that we can benefit from,” l. 2). It is directly addressed to the employee (“you,” l. 2), and there are no major hesitations, pauses, or restarts in the turn indicating that the turn is dispreferred. The turn also has a short turn design consisting of only two units. As in the previous excerpts, the negative assessment focuses on the employee’s potential to improve (“you have many good ideas”) instead of focusing on the negative side, namely, the lack of initiative. After a 1.1-second pause, the employee takes over and reacts directly by addressing the criticism. She does so by presenting a simple solution to the problem, namely, “being more active” (l. 5). She takes responsibility for future changes in behavior (“I”, l. 5), thereby displaying her understanding of the criticism and efficiently outlining future action. In lines 6 and 7, the supervisor acknowledges the employee’s understanding of the problem by laughter and then initiates a topic shift to the next point on the agenda (“change process,” l. 7).

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis indicates that despite the institutional character of these interviews, the participants orient to preference organization in a fashion similar to that documented in ordinary conversation. In many cases, the supervisor orients to the production of a negative assessment as a dispreferred action, and the turn is designed accordingly (e.g., prefaces, restarts, delays, or pauses). When the supervisor does not show orientation to dispreference of the involved activity, the turn displays a direct and brief turn design without any signs of dispreference. In some of the cases in which turn design does not display any orientation to dispreference, the sequential placement of the turn seems to account for the turn design: The negative assessment is part of a topic shift initiation, and the negative feedback is therefore less socially problematic. The study also indicates that there is a close relationship between the way in which the negative assessment is launched by the supervisor and the way the employee orients toward it. If it is oriented to as a socially unproblematic action, it is given a direct, brief response and initiates a direct discussion about the topic. If the supervisor orients to the activity as a socially problematic action, the employee cannot take over and directly addresses the criticism without further interactional work. As a consequence, the sequence is prolonged, and the employee’s opportunity to

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

425

show his understanding of the problem and to offer solutions is postponed (and sometimes such an opportunity is not given at all).

The study also indicates that there is a close relationship between the way in which the negative assessment is launched by the supervisor and the way the employee orients toward it.

Implications for the Workplace

The study offers insight into the interactional structure of performance appraisal interviews that explains why certain crucial activities in a workplace environment are difficult to perform for the participants. For this study, the notion of preference helps to understand why it is difficult to perform negative assessments in performance appraisal interviews. The idea of preference provides insight into the interactional consequences of these actions for an interview: It helps us to understand why specific issues take a long time to discuss and why specific issues are difficult to address directly. Consequently, studies such as this one can help to reevaluate strategic aims for performance appraisal interviews, redefine notions of best practice, and help to discuss questions of interview design. Below, some of the main implications of this study for the workplace will be discussed. The results indicate that the participants orient to criticism as a socially problematic action despite the fact that negative feedback is an integral part of performance appraisal interviews. This interactional orientation prolongs such interviews, as well as making it more difficult for the employee to address the criticism directly. Thus, the supervisor’s opportunity to gain insight into the employee’s understanding of the problem and to obtain proposals for a solution to the problem is limited. With regard to the workplace, it seems to be worthwhile discussing whether the interview preparation form can be designed in a way that helps the supervisor to produce negative feedback in an unproblematic way. This approach could be done by explicitly requesting negative feedback from the supervisor and the employee respectively as part of the interview (a form of institutionalized distinction between positive and negative feedback). Such an approach may result in a more efficient and direct way of discussing changes in an employee’s performance. Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

426

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Moreover, the study indicates that the way criticism is initiated by the supervisor has a crucial impact on how the employee responds to criticism. The more the supervisor shows orientation to negative feedback as being socially problematic, the more interactional work is required of the employee to address the criticism. This result highlights the supervisor’s crucial role in defining problematic and nonproblematic activities in performance appraisal interviews. Increased awareness of this issue for those who plan, design, and conduct performance appraisal interviews may therefore be worth considering. This study has dealt with a relatively limited data set both in terms of the number of organizations involved and the number of performance appraisal interviews investigated. A greater diversity of data could perhaps have helped to illuminate the phenomenon analyzed further. The phenomenon that has been investigated is just one in a series of crucial activities in performance appraisal interviews that have not been studied in great detail yet. For example, it may be worthwhile studying the interactional function of positive assessments further. In other words, this study should be seen as a first step toward increased insight into the interactional structure of this specific kind of workplace interaction. APPENDIX

Transcription Glossary

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

427

NOTE

1. For the purpose of this study, the person in charge of the performance appraisal interview is called “the supervisor.” The coparticipant is called “the employee.” REFERENCES

Allen, K. L. (2000, April). Reappraising performance appraisal. Across the Board, p. 62. American Psychological Association. (2005). Publication manual (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Arminen, I. (2000). On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction. Discourse & Society, 11(4), 435-458. Asmuß, B., & Steensig, J. (Eds.) (2003). Samtalen på arbejde—Konversationsanalyse og kompetenceudvikling. [Conversation at the workplace—Conversation analysis and competence development.]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur. Asmuß, B., & Steensig, J. (2005). Notes on disaligning ‘yes but’ initiated utterances in German and Danish conversations. Two construction types for dispreferred responses. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation (pp. 349-373). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Atkinson, M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Preference organization. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 53-56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baker, C., Emmison, M., & Firth, A. (Eds.) (2005). Calling for help: Language and social interaction in telephone helplines (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 143). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk. Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Clifton, J. (2006). A conversation analytical approach to business communication: The case of leadership. Journal of Business Communication, 43(3), 202-219. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fellinger, Å. (2005). Svære medarbejdersamtaler. Bliv en bedre chef [Difficult employee performance appraisals. Become a better boss].Copenhagen, Denmark: JyllandsPostens Forlag. Firth, A. (Ed.). (1995). The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473-487. Frimann, S. (2004). I sauna med chefen? (u)muligheder i medarbejderudviklingssamtalen [In the sauna with the boss? (Im)possibilities in employee performance appraisals]. In H. Alrø & M. Kristiansen (Eds.), Dialog og magt i organisationer [Dialogue and power in organizations] (pp. 129-167). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Gabris, G., & Ihrke, D. (2001). Does performance appraisal contribute to heightened levels of employee burnout? The results of one study. Public Personnel Management, 30(2), 157-172. Golser-Wamser, C. (2005). Internal communication across Europe 2005. A research report by Feiea in cooperation with Trident Communciations. Retrieved from http://www. feiea.com/menu,1875,page,1875.html.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

428

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Grote, D. (2000, May). The secrets of performance appraisal. Best practices from the masters. Across the Board, pp. 14-20. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Heritage, J., & Stivers, T. (1999). Online commentary in acute medical visits: A method of shaping patient expectations. Social Science and Medicine, 49(11), 1501-1517. Housley, W. (2000). Category work and knowledgeability within multidisciplinary team meetings. Text, 20, 83-107. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized interview. The living questionnaire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22, 193-216. Laird, A., & Clampitt, P. (1985). Effective performance appraisal: Viewpoints from managers. Journal of Business Communication, 22(3), 49-57. Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303-321. Lindström, A. (2005). Offers and requests in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation (pp. 209-230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Losyk, B. (2002). How to conduct a performance appraisal. Public Management, 84(3), 8-11. Mani, B. G. (2002). Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 141-159. Maynard, D. W., & Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis, doctor-patient interaction and medical communication. Medical Education, 39, 428-435. Maynard, D. W., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., Schaeffer N. C., & van der Zouwen, J. (Eds.). (2002). Standardization and tacit knowledge. Interaction and practice in the survey interview. New York: John Wiley. Mikkelsen, A. (2002). Medarbeidersamtaler i det nye arbeidslivet [Employee performance appraisals in the new work life]. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen. Nathan, B. R., Mohrman, A. M., & Millman, J. (1991). Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 352-369. Neuberger, O. (1998). Das Mitarbeitergespräch. Praktische Grundlagen für erfolgreiche Führungsarbeit [The employee performance appraisal. Practical basis for successful leadership]. Leonberg, Germany: Rosenberger Fachverlag. Peräkylä, A. (2002). Agency and authority: Extended responses to diagnostic statements in primary care encounters. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 219-247. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Poon, J. M. L. (2004). Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Personnel Review, 33(3), 322-334. Rasmussen, G., & Wagner, J. (2002). Language choice in international telephone conversations. In K. K. Luke & T. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures (pp. 111-131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Roberts, G. E. (2002). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 333-342. Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015

Asmuß / PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEWS

429

Ruusuvuori, J. (2005). ‘Empathy’ and ‘sympathy’ in action: Attending to patients’ troubles in Finnish homeopathic and general practice consultations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(3), 204-222. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. (G. Jefferson, Ed., Vols. I & II). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. Scheuer, J. (2001). Ledelsesmæssige idealer og sproglig virkelighed i medarbejdersamtaler [Management ideals and linguistic reality in employee performance appraisals]. Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, 4, 27-48. Scott, S. G., & Einstein, W. O. (2001). Strategic performance appraisal in team-based organizations: One size does not fit all. Academy of Management Executive, 15(2), 107-116. Soltani, E. (2005). Conflict between theory and practice: TQM and performance appraisal. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(8), 796-818. Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, E., Vine, B., & Marra, M. (2003). Multiple discourse analyses of workplace interaction. Discourse Studies, 5, 351-388. Weick, K. E. (2004). A bias for conversation: Acting discursively in organizations. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Coswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 405-412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 6, 2015