To the extent that a manager and subordinate hold diVering views concerning
what constitutes job performance, conXict is likely to occur. The solution is to
adapt/tie Campbell et al.’s ( 1993 ) theory of performance to an organization’s
strategy, as suggested by Wherry and Bartlett’s ( 1982 ) theory. Further, BOS should
be used to make explicit to all parties ‘the rules of the game’ for earning a high
appraisal. The basis for an evaluation must be made explicit prior to the appraisal
period (e.g. absolute vs. comparative vs. relative improvement).
The appraisal system includes the training of observers, the development and use
of an appraisal scale, and the deWnition of performance that is to be assessed by the
scale. In contrast, the appraisal process includes providing feedback to an employee
and setting goals to be attained based on this feedback. Hence there is a direct
linkage between the performance appraisal literature and the literature on motiv-
ation, particularly in regard to feedback and goal-setting theory (Locke and
Latham 1990 , 2002 ). The integration of these two linkages is the essence of a
performance management system (Williams 1998 ; Latham and Mann 2006 )because
the feedback is given on an ongoing basis for the purpose of developing and
motivating an individual. Consistent with both Wherry and Bartlett’s, as well as
Campbell et al.’s theories, the feedback is likely to be acted upon, and the commit-
ment to goals based on this feedback is likely to be high, if the appraisal scale
assesses the behaviors necessary for implementing the organization’s strategy. That
is, the scale makes explicit what employees must do to implement it eVectively
(Latham and Latham 2000 ). This was shown in a study by Wright ( 2004 ). He
employed a cognitive mapping strategy to identify issues of concern to both raters
and ratees when considering what constitutes an eVective appraisal system. Con-
sistent with Wherry and Bartlett’s theory, the results showed that raters want to see
that the appraisal system adds value to the organization, and is linked to business
strategy. Ratees emphasized that the system should be speciWc and easy to under-
stand. These results reinforce Balzer and Sulsky’s ( 1990 ) conclusion that the
perception of an appraisal’s eVectiveness is likely to vary across constituent groups.
Studies on the eVectiveness of training programs on ways to provide ongoing
feedback, and set challenging goals for an employee based on this feedback, are
absent from the literature. Nevertheless, frameworks for the design of training
programs do exist. DeNisi and Kluger ( 2000 ) reported that feedback is eVective
when it (a) focuses on the behavior rather than the person, (b) is selective so as not
to overwhelm the person, (c) focuses on the behavior that is desired, and the way to
demonstrate it, and (d) is used as the basis for setting speciWc goals. Similarly,
Frese’s ( 2005 ) research shows that people can be taught through instructions to
embrace negative feedback when errors are framed as beneWcial to the learning
process, and to be resilient subsequent to making errors, through systematic
exploration. Goal-setting research suggests when to set performance outcome
versus learning versus behavioral goals (Brown and Latham 2002 ; Seijts and
Latham 2001 ). Keown-Gerrard and Sulsky ( 2001 ) demonstrated that it is possible
performance management 375