Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1991 The Myth of Performance Appraisals Michael Bochenek Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Bochenek, Michael, "The Myth of Performance Appraisals" (1991). Dissertations. 2748. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/2748 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1991 Michael Bochenek LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO THE MYTH OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY BY MICHAEL BOCHENEK CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JANUARY 1991 Copyright by Michael Peter Bochenek, 1991 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank Phil Nyden, Judy Wittner and Ross Scherer, the members of my committee, who saw my shortcomings, expressed them in a supportive way, offered ideas and encouragement, and taught me how to develop my data into a dissertation worthy of their standards. I also want to thank the employees I interviewed for their genuine interest in my research and openness about our organization which made the data come alive. I also need to acknowledge the efforts of Geri, Ginene, Linda, and Laurel who helped print the dissertation and to Flip and the Chief who offered spiritual support. My daughters, Kristie and Tracy, were proud of my efforts and inspired me to continue as they were racing me to graduation. Finally, I want to thank my wife, Donna, who never wavered in her emotional support and who transcribed many legal pads of handwritten words into this dissertation. Her immediate reward is a clean dining room table. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iii LIST OF TABLES. • . v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • vi Chapter 1. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION........................ 1 2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES •••••••••••..•••••••.••• 18 3. THEORETICAL AND RESEARCH DESIGN ••••••••••••••.•• 79 4. THE CONTEXT OF THE ORGANIZATION ••••••••••••••••. 91 5. THE CULTURE OF CONTROL .•••••••••••••••••••••.••. 116 6. ORGANIZATIONAL BELIEFS AND VALUES ••••..••••••••. 155 7. THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF APPRAISALS •••••.••••••• 225 8. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY •••••••••••••••••••••.•••• 275 APPENDIX 1. INTERVIEW GUIDE .•••••••.••••••••.••.••••••• 322 APPENDIX 2. APPRAISAL BIOGRAPHY ••••••••••.••••••••••••• 323 APPENDIX 3. PARTICIPANT-OBSERVATION GUIDE •••••••...•••• 326 APPENDIX 4 • AP FORM. • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • . 3 2 9 APPENDIX 5. APPRAISAL CONVENTIONS ••••••••.••••.•••••••. 333 APPENDIX 6. SPECIALIZED LANGUAGE .•.•••••.•••••••..••••. 345 APPENDIX 7. APPRAISAL ALTERNATIVES ..••••••..•••••.•.... 355 APPENDIX 8. SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH •••••..• 374 APPENDIX 9. REFLECTIONS ON RESEARCH PROCESS •••••.•••••• 379 REFERENCES. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 8 7 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. summary of Structural Features of ZY&Y Engineering Unit. 1 o o 2. List of Employee Behavior and Methods for Control in Engineering Unit, ZY&Y Corporation .. 130 3. EA Appraisal Cell Structure ............•......... 144 4. Employee Perception of Value Managers Place on Employee Behavior.............................. 204 5. Employee Perceptions of High and Low Impact Behaviors...................................... 205 6. Manager Perception of Weight Managers Place on Employee Behavior. 211 7. Comparison of High and Low Impact Behaviors ...... 212 8. Rank Order of Behaviors Valued by Workers vs Managers in ZY&Y Corporation ................... 221 9. 1989 Appraisal Distribution of Cell Placement by Subbranch ( BLM) . • . • . • • • . • • • . 2 4 o 10. 1989 Appraisal Distribution of Cell Position by Service..................................... 241 11. 1989 Appraisal Distribution of Cell Position by Gender. 2 4 2 12. Summary of Group Decision-Making Conventions Used by Managers of ZY &Y. • • • • • • . • . • . 2 4 3 13. Political Process Model of Appraisal Construction ................................... 259 14. Overview of Context Factors in Evaluations, ZY&Y Engineering Unit .....••.••••••.•.......... 268 15. Thompson's Decision-Making Models .•.•.•....•...•. 270 v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Framework for Analysis........................... 15 2. Comparison of Changes in Engineering Structures.. 94 3. ZY&Y Engineering Organization .................... 102 4. Management vs Technical Career Paths ............. 107 5. Model of Appraisal Production Actually Used in ZY&Y •••••••................... 256 vi CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION Research Setting I studied a regional headquarters of the engineering division of a large company, ZY&Y. The location employed approximately 1100 supervisory, technical, professional, and clerical personnel, providing equipment engineering services and sales support to communications customers in five midwestern states. The unit had a functionally structured hierarchy, exhibiting many features of Weber's bureaucratic model of administration. The details of the structure are amplified in Chapter 4. Although the setting was a profit-oriented business, the researcher can argue that the evaluation problems, process, and consequences found here also apply to non­ profit settings like schools, colleges, and social welfare agencies. The study is informed by data from these settings to enlighten the research process. Research Problem During the past five years, I worked as the management contact for all issues relating to our local union. During this assignment, I continued to hear complaints about the evaluation system used to rate the group represented by our union, i.e., the Engineering Associates (EA). Surprisingly, 2 the criticisms came from both union representatives and the managers with the task of appraising the EAs. In fact, many managers griped about their own treatment in the evaluation process. The appraisal issues are so pervasive and persistent that they seemed a fitting topic for research. Thus the problem of this study was to describe and explain the construction and use of performance appraisals in the engineering unit of a large corporation. More specifically, I analyzed the evaluation process to determine: How an appraisal was produced? By Whom? Under what conditions? What impact did evaluations have for individuals and the organization? What did evaluations mean? What assumptions surrounded the evaluation process? The research produced data which described and explained the structure, process, and belief system of evaluation at the organizational and workplace levels and explored alternative evaluation structures to change the balance of power between worker and manager. Dueling Perspectives Performance appraisals were studied from two distinct perspectives: (1) a management (administrative) and (2) a sociological viewpoint. Management, as a group of power producing actors within organizations, define appraisals as tools to measure, develop, motivate, promote, measure, place, train, discipline, terminate, or reward employees. Evaluations are means to manage the organization and make a 3 profit for the company. Much of the mainstream management literature defines and accepts appraisals as a tool to provide fair rewards and to develop employees. (Gibb, 1985; Graves, 1982; Levine, 1986; Reed & Kroll, 1985). (The critical view, which concludes that appraisals are politically negotiated, subjective control devices, is not usually presented here (Fischer & Sirianni, 1984; Edwards, 1984)). Management articles aimed to improve, not question, the basis of the existing practices. Performance evaluations are accepted as normal, ordinary factors of organizational life. The focus of articles is to find a better, i.e., more rational way to produce evaluations -- conduct interviews, write-up appraisals, and measure performance. The underlying assumptions of what appraisals represent are not considered. In contrast, sociologists see performance evaluations as products of social factors such as cooperation, negotiation, and conflict with layers of unexplained and implicit meanings. To sociologists, appraisals are cultural products that provide data to examine issues like power, inequality patterns, processes of labeling, legitimation, and decision-making; structures of opportunity and reward; construction of shared conceptions like efficiency or productivity, and conventions to produce a completed appraisal (Becker, 1986). A growing number of writers (Fischer & Sirianni, 1984; Goldman & Van Houten, 1977; 4 Hyman, 1975; Benson, 1977: smircich, 1983) have criticized the traditional, predominant approach to studying organizations where problems are framed as disruptions in the rational, taken-for-granted features of organizations. The critical view rejects Weber's rational model and proposed examining the forces that produce organizational realities like goals, technology, appraisals, and structure instead of accepting them as givens. In the new view organizations are not merely tools for efficiency,