TRUST AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: FROM BOTH SIDES

Transcription

1 TRUST AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: FROM BOTH SIDES M. Audrey Korsgaard University of South Carolina The Performance Review I am glad I left my executive job five years ago, but I might have stayed were it not for the performance reviews and everything they stand for in corporate life. The moment I realised that I had to leave my job before I lost my mind was when my supervisor gave me the highest possible grade in my performance review, but then told me that my performance still wasn t good enough. I don t understand? Without performance reviews, how will we be able to lay off the people we don t like? Time to Review Workplace Reviews? Tara Parker Pope NY Times, May 17,

2 Why is this so hard? Poor design and execution Structural: policy, measurement, integration with other systems Leadership: lack of training, commitment Competing purposes Tension between administrative and developmental purposes Rewarding present performance vs. potential Competing motivations Conflicts between manager/employee, agent/principal Individual motivation vs. group cohesion Self-concept conflicts: impression management, verification, enhancement Trust to the Rescue Role of Trust in PA Trust as a consequence of well-designed PA systems (e.g., Mayer & Davis, 1999) Trust as a determinate of PA outcomes (Hedge & Teachout, 2000; Mani, 2002) Using knowledge of trust to enhance effectiveness of PA Organizational justice Trust building and trustworthiness 2

3 Basic Definitions Interpersonal trust Willingness to accept vulnerability based on the positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (Mayer et al., 1995; Sitkin et al. 1998) Trustworthiness as a critical determinant of trust amd organization behavior (Colquitt et al. 2004; Mayer et al., 1995) Three components: Ability Benevolence Integrity Distributive Organizational Justice and Trust Fair ratings and rewards Reflects integrity Procedural Due process Reflects integrity Informational Truthfulness, transparency Integrity Interactional Respect and consideration Benevolence and integrity 3

4 Designing Trust into PA System Due process Adequate notice Fair hearing Evidence-based judgment Evidence Comprehensive redesign Mayer & Davis (1999) Taylor et al.(1995) Modification of specific elements e.g., voice Roberson et al Managing Trust in the PA Review Managerial Fairness Due process enacted Interactional and Informational justice Manager motivations and emotions (Scott et al. 2009) Managerial communication competencies Evidence Training managers and subordinates (Korsgaard, et al., 1998 Patterns of communication (Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995) Liking and distributive, interactional (Antonioni & Park, 2001; Bates, 2002; Scott et al., 2007) 4

5 Toward a Two-sided of Trust in PA Systems Importance of looking at the manager s reactions Managers have considerable discretion in PA Managers experience anxiety, stress and frustration regarding PA Importance of mutual trust Performance reviews are a defining event that can (un)build trust Performance appraisal as relationship building (Mayer & Davis, 1999) Mutual Trust Trust may not be mutual (Brower et al., 2003; Brower et al. 2009) Correlation between parties significant but small 51% disagreed: managers tend to trust more Why? Differences in actual trustworthiness Individual differences PA Context trust disadvantage (Emerson; Thibaut & Kelly) Differences in mental models of trustworthiness Role differences PA context 5

6 Key Differences in Leader-Follower Roles Power: Leaders control over resources Dependence: Leaders spread risk across followers Key Risk Taking Leaders: Delegation (Werbel, 2009) Followers: Accepting influence (Sweeny et al. 07; Dirks & Sweeney, 2010) Differences Overall less emphasis on ABI by leaders Follower place more emphasis on integrity and benevolence Risk Taking with Leaders and Followers Sample 79 working adults enrolled in evening MBA program 65% male, 7% AA, 16% Asian, 69% Caucasian, 7% Hispanic, 2% Other Average=28, Average experience = 6.2 years Within-Subjects role x ABI Scenarios Would you put your destiny in this person s control? Findings Main effect of role: m leaders = 5.22 m followers = 6.49 Interaction of role and ABI 6

7 Role X Dimension Effects Implications Implications for Performance Reviews Manager focus: Diagnosing performance problems (ability) Controlling the evaluation process (integrity) Looking fair or being nice (own integrity) Employee focus: Getting a fair rating and reward (integrity) Getting guidance and support (benevolence and competence) Saving face and keeping the faith (benevolence) Leaders follower roles Weight information about ABI differentially Attend to different cues Focus their own behavior toward different dimensions 7

8 Research Agenda Impact of PA system and review on downward trust Kim and colleagues: attributions for performance Employee trustworthy behavior How does PA context inhibit/encourage ETB? Impact of PA on trust over time How enduring are effects on trust? Reciprocal influence Interplay between dimensions Conflict of self goals and the balance of benevolence and integrity 8