Employee Performance Appraisal System Participation:

A Technique that Works

Gary E. Roberts
Performance appraisal is one of the most complex and controversial human resource techniques.
Participatory performance appraisal is an essential and proven attribute of an effective
performance appraisal system. This article summarizes the conceptual foundation for
participation including its Intrinsic motivational value, the expansion of available information,
and the opportu nity to interject employee voice. The moderating role of goal setting and
feedback in enhancing participation effectiveness is outlined. The article concludes with
factors that attenuate the effectiveness of participation Including lack of training, absence of
rater accountability strategies, and organizational and supervisory resistance to honest
subordinate feedback.

Performance appraisal is a controversial management tool searching for answers to

ubiquitous problems in system design and adminlstration.t The main objective of this paper
is to succinctly summarize the key elements that
make employee performance appraisal participation an essential component of an
effective system. Genuine performance appraisal participation is a process that can
mitigate many of the dysfunctions of traditional performance appraisal systems as well as
engender a more "humane" and ethical human resource management decision making
process.s
Critics of performance appraisal present a number of compelling arguments against its
use. Anecdotal, empirical and personal experience demonstrates a multi tude of problems
with appraisal system practices. The main critiques are that indi vidual performance
appraisal assumes a fa1se degree of measurement accuracy, engenders dysfunctional
employee conflict and competition, assigns an inordinate amount of responsibility for poor
performance to individual employees while under valuing the importance of the overall work
process, underemphasizes the importance of the work group, and is often used as a
managerial "Theory X" control device.3 Crit ics of performance appraisal argue that there is
a dearth of valid research to substan tiate the claims of supporters. Proponents of
performance appraisal argue that many of these negative effects of appraisal are remediable
through the application of gen uine employee participation. 4

Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

89

The overall utility of performance appraisal participation was clearly demon strated in a
recent meta-analysis of 27 studies.> Performance appraisal participation was strongly associated
with desirable appraisal-related outcomes such as higher lev els of appraisal satisfaction and
acceptance. 6 Given its demonstrated efficacy,what are the conceptual underpinnings of
participation's effectiveness?
Conceptual Foundation
The conceptual base supporting the efficacy of the participatory performance appraisal
framework centers upon its cognitive and affective benefits." From a moti vational standpoint,
employee participation is a key element of intrinsic motivational strategies that facilitate worker
growth and development. Intrinsically motivating employment entails jobs that possess task
slgnificance, skill variety, task identity (a clear work product), performance feedback and worker
autonomys Employee partic ipation is an effective tool for enhancing job-related autonomy, a
necessary precondi tion for employee growth. Intrinsic motivational approaches clearly
communicate trust and confidence in employee abilities. A major moderating factor in the success
of participation is the employee's need for growth. Employees who are comfortable with traditional
authoritarian management approaches are not directly motivated by increased input, but may value
another important attribute of participatory appraisal, employee voice.
Appraisal participation provides employees with voice into the appraisal process. With the presence
of employee particlpatron, employees are empowered to rebut rat ings, documentation or verbal
feedback that they disagree with.s If employees are con fident in the fairness of the appraisal
process, they are more likely to accept
. performance ratings, even adverse ones, if they perceive a fair decision making
process. to
The third conceptual foundation derives from the assumption that employees possess valid,
unique and relevant performance information and insight that is unavailable or unobservable
by me rater. Thus, when employees participate in [he appraisal process, me quality and quantity
of performance appraisal information increases leading to a more accurate and valid rating.u
The fourth factor is that in a participatory appraisal system, the employee attains
"ownership" over the process and manifests ego involvement as the ratee manifests a stake in the
success of the system, enhancing employee acceptance.P Employees frequently set higher
performance goals than management when they possess the requisite level of autonomy, authority
and resource support.
The fifth element is [hat greater employee participation generates an atmos
phere of cooperation and employee support, which encourages me development of a coaching or
counseling relationship, thereby reducing appraisal related tension, defensive behavior and raterratee confltct.>

Performance Appraisal

90

Public Personnel Management

90

Volume32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Forms of Participation in the Appraisal Process

Comprehensive and effective participation within the performance appraisal process consists of
joint rater-ratee development of: 1) performance standards, 2) the rating form, 3) employee selfappraisal, and 4) ratee participation in the interview t> The effectiveness of participation is
moderated by two key processes, the amount and quality of informal performance feedback and
goal setting which focuses attention on the future. Ideally all of the above elements are present to
reinforce the attributes of a participatory, empowered work culture. If one or more of these factors
is missing, the probability of an ineffectual performance appraisal system increases significantly.
Performance Standard Participation
Clear and specific standards of performance are major elements of a valid and reliable performance
appraisal systern.w The key is to develop standards that measure the essential job duties and
responsibilities utilizing a balance of process, outcome, and individual and group-based
performance standards. The development of reliable, valid, fair and useful performance
standards is enhanced by employee participation, as workers possess requisite unique and
essential information necessary for develop ing realistic standards.
Rating Form Participation
Employee participation in developing the rating form and appraisal procedures is the logical
extension of the development of performance standards. The rating form sum marizes the formal
operational definition of what the organization considers worthy of formal appraisal. As such, it is
important to gather employee input on the aspects of performance formally appraised as welJ as
the measurement scales provided. For example, employees may prefer a pass/fail system if the
focus is on globaJ feedback versus more detailed individualized assessments.l?
Self Evaluation
Self-appraisals provide employees with the opportunity to systematically assess their performance.
Studies indicate that self appraisal increases employee preparation and readiness for the appraisal
interview, enhances overall satisfaction, increases perceived appraisal fairness, and can reduce
defensive behavior if used for developmental pur poses.w Employees can self-evaluate by
completing their own appraisal and present ing the draft for discussion with the manager or can
review a draft of the manager's appraisal. Managerial and employee ratings frequently do not agree,
but in a partici patory system the goal is nor absolute agreement, but a process directed towards
achieving consensus over time. The self-appraisal process is improved Significantlyif clear
performance standards are used, the employees are experienced, and trust lev els are high."?

Performance Appraisal

91

Public Personnel Management

91

Volume32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Performance Appraisal Interview Participation

Most of the appraisal research focuses on the influence of participation in the
appraisal interview. There is a large body of research stretching from the 60 s co the
90 s indicating that employee participation in the interview is associated with a vari ety of
desirable appraisal related outcomes, including appraisal system fairness, appraisal
satisfaction, supervisory support, satisfaction with supervisors, appraisal sys tem acceptance
and greater employee acceptance of negative feedback.I?
The performance appraisal process culminates with the appraisal rating. Perfor
mance appraisal ratings are the product of an ongoing series of rater-ratee interac tions
valued by employees both intrinsically and extrinsically. Intrinsic value derives from the
validation of the employee's performance efficacy, and extrinsic worth from the linkage
with external recognition and personnel decision rnaklng.s! The perfor mance appraisal
interview seriously tests the skills of the rater, and if this function is handled poorly, the
benefits of an accurate appraisal can be lost and employee moti vation reduced. A quality
performance appraisal interview includes sensitivity to employee needs for privacy and
confidentiality, giving the employee undivided atten tion during the appraisal interview,
reserving adequate time for a full discussion of the issues, and both the supervisor and
rater's being prepared.t- Conducting the perfor mance appraisal interview in a perfunctory
or rushed manner with numerous inter ruptions enhances employee perceptions of
manipulation.c'
A participatory appraisal interview style also entails a strong emphasis on employee
performance counseling. Participatory systems facilitate the discussion of employee
strengths and weaknesses in a positive context where the goal is to help the employee
improve his or her performance. Hence, participatory appraisal rein forces communication
and analysis related to employee training needs, promotional opporturuties, and skills
development.e' A counseling approach facilitates the identi fication of discrepancies in
rater-ratee perceptions, which if left unchallenged, can lead to serious disagreement
during the evaluation cycle.
Goal Setting and Feedback
An important set of appraisal moderators is goal setting and feedback. Goal setting is a well
established and empirically verified theory of motivation, but the majority of goal setting
research takes place in non-appraisal settings.o Effective goal setting in the appraisal process
consists of performance goals that are specific, moderately dif ficult and accepred.es
Effective goal setting is clearly associated with higher employee performance and
satisfaction.t? Goal setting within performance appraisal has been associated with greater
appraisal satisfaction, higher job satisfaction, and increased performance 28 Goal setting's
effectiveness derives from its ability co focus employee effort and attention on the critical tasks
at hand, enhancing employee persistence and reducing the likelihood of being dtstracted.s?
Goal setting is a powerful motivational technique because both intrinsic and extrinsic
satisfaction flows from goal achieve menr.30 Goal setting focuses attention and effort on the
future which can be changed

Performance Appraisal

92

Public Personnel Management

92

Volume32 No. 1 Spring 2003

versus the judgmental performance appraisal process's emphasis on past behavior, which
cannot be altered.
An effective appraisal process requires employee feedback. Appraisal systems
that provide formal feedback once a year are more likely to be feedback deficient.a! For an
appraisal system to be maximally effective, there must be ongoing formal and informal
performance feedback.32 In essence, feedback is the "raw material" of employee
participation. Feedback is essential in gaining the maximum benefits from goal seutng. Without
feedback, employees are unable to make adjustments in job performance or receive positive
reinforcement for effective job behavior.34 Effective performance feedback is timely, specific,
behavioral in nature, and presented by a credible source. Performance feedback is effective in
changing employee work behavior and enhances employee job sausfacuon and performance.36
Role of Employee Acceptance
Research demonstrates that performance appraisal systems that exhibit higher levels of
participation are positively associated with elevated levels of employee and rater acceptance,
which is a critical intermediate variable in the generation of appraisal sys tem satisfaction,
motivation and productlvitys? If employees and raters do not accept the appraisal system, the
system will be ineffective irrespective of its degree of tech nical soundness.38 Lack of user
acceptance engenders resistance and a reduction in user motivation transforming the process into
a paper "shuffling" exercise. If users accept the system, supervisor motivation to produce an
accurate performance assess ment increases and ratees are more likely to accept organizational
personnel decl s.ions.39
Employees are more likely to accept the appraisal system if they understand the performance
measurement process, agree on the value orientation of the system (i.e., focus on quality over
quantity) share a consensus with management on the perfor mance standards used, possess
confidence in the accuracy of performance measure ment, and perceive an absence of rater bias.40
Prior research indicates that employee participation, goal setting and feedback enhance
performance measurement accura cyand reduce the potential for rater bias as employees have a
role in the administra tion of the performance measurement process.v' Thus, when
systems are participatory, the rating process is more likely to be valid and produce information
that possesses utility and validity.
The fact that employee acceptance is a critical variable is not surprising. Empirical
and personal experience confirms that employee perceptions regarding a tool or prac tice colors
their behavioral intentions and actual actions. If employees lack confidence in the efficacy of the
rater or the validity of the system, the appraisal process breaks down. The key is the cultivation of
employee acceptance, which is not an easy task.
The cultivation of high levels of employee acceptance is not accidenral, howev
er. The appraisal system cannot meet its primary goals if the manager is unskilled at conducting
the interview or fails to provide clear guidance and counseling. Participa tion, goal setting and
feedback are critical for enhancing the accuracy and quality of

Performance
Appralsal
93

93

Public Personnel Management

93
Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003
93

performance standards and goals, facilitating a consensus/understanding on perfor mance

standards, and increasing commitmem to goals and standards. Participation enables the
employee to offer opinions and rebut information that they disagree with.
Cultivating favorable levels of employee acceptance (an attitude) requires that
all-important aspects of the appraisal system be working properly. A single defect in the
appraisal process can impede employee support and confidence. For example, an accurate
and fairly administered appraisal system that measures inappropriate or unimportant
aspects of the job will engender user resistance (i.e., focusing on indi vidual performance
when the work group should be the unit of analysis). Hence, there are many "veto
points" in the operation of any performance appraisal system
that can reduce acceptance.
Factors the Reduce the Effectiveness of
Participation
There are several factors that reduce the effectiveness of participation. Participatory
systems function most effectively in an atmosphere of trust and open communication.
If employees perceive that they will be punished for disagreeing, providing negative
feedback, or making mistakes, open communication will be extinguished, mitigating the
positive influence of participatlon.w Participation quickly becomes reduced to
"pseudo-participation"
in which employee input is accepted only if it conforms to
organizational or managerial demands or preferences. The end result is a diminished
level of motivation and commitment as well as an increase in employee cynicism.
The second factor that attenuates the effectiveness of participation is unequal employee
treatment. If employees perceive bias or favoritism in managerial behavior, it accelerates
perceptions of inequity. Managers frequently engage in what is termed
"in-group" and "out-group" behavior in which employees who are liked and/or are
viewed as capable are supervised in a participatory fashion while employees who are
viewed unfavorably receive traditional, more authoritarian supervtston.e The catego
rization of employees is frequently made with incomplete information leading to mis
classification of employees. Managers need to continually question their beliefs
regarding worker rnotivatlon, ability and performance, especially poorly performing
employees. The key is to take a courtroom perspective, innocent until proven guilty,
which forces managers to search out and analyze all sources of information that may
provide explanatory, mitigating or extenuating factors on employee problems. This is one
of the essential goals of a participatory performance appraisal system.
A third Impediment is the absence of rater training and support in conducting
participatory performance appraisal. The cultivation of participatory management
requires conceptual, affective, and experiential education. Managers should receive
extensive training in goal setting, setting performance standards, conducting inter
views, providing feedback, counseling employees, managing conflict, and avoiding rat ing
errors. In this training there should be a clear discussion of [he ethical
implications, dilemmas and conflicts inherent in the appraisal process from the per
spectives of [he employee, the manager and the organization.

Performance
Appralsal
94

94

Public Personnel Management

94
Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003
94

A fourth barrier is the absence of rating system accountability. Organizational accountability

is enhanced if raters are assigned senior mentors who regularly review the manager's
administration of the performance appraisal process. Performance appraisal management should
be a formal component of the manager's rating. A relat ed recommendation is the presence of
subordinate appraisal to provide systematic feedback on managerial behavior encompassing key
administrative duties including the operation of the appraisal process .".4
A fifth barrier is the absence of systematic evaluation of performance appraisal system
participation effectiveness. Regular employee attitude surveys and focus groups are useful as
they provide aggregate employee data on the operation of the appraisal system. Absent systematic
evaluation, the organization cannot make data based adjustments to the appraisal system.
Conclusion
Participatory performance appraisal is an essential component of a fair and ethical evaluation of an
employee's performance. Governmental organizations manifest an ethicaJ obligation to perform
this complex function in a fair and unbiased fashion given performance appraisal's implications
for employee career success, self-esteem and mental health. Multifaceted employee participation
entails meaningful input in developing performance standards and the rating form, worker selfevaluation, and two-way communication in the appraisal interview. When employees possess a
mean ingful role in the appraisal process, employee acceptance and satisfaction with the appraisal
process is strongly enhanced. Clearly,many variables contribute to dissatis faction with
performance appraisal systems, but failure to institute a participatory sys tem will result in
continued performance appraisal ineffectiveness.
Notes
I Thayer. F. (1987). "Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay Systems: The Disasters Multiply,"
Review of Public Personnel Administration, volume 7. 36,53; Fox. C. J. <199.1). "Employee
Performance Appraisal: The Keystone Made of Clay," In C. Ban & N. M. Riccuccl (Eds.),
Public Pers01117eMl anagement: Curren!
Concerns-Puture Challenges. New York: Longman; Bowman, j. S. (1994). ')\1" last, an
Alternative to
Performance Appraisal: Total Quality Management ...Public Administration Review, volume
54, 129l36.
1 Roberts, G. E. (1992). "Linkages Between Performance Appraisal System Effectiveness and
Rater and Ratee Acceptance. Evidence from a Survey of Municipal Personnel Administrators,"
Review of Public Personnel Administratton, volume 12, 19-41.
; Deming, WE. (1986). OUI of the Crisis. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Center for Advanced
Engineering Study.
<I
Carroll, S. J. C. E. Schneier (1982). Performance and Review Systems: The tdenttficauon,
Measurement, Development of Performance in Organizations. Dallas: SCOff. Foresman and
Company; Bernardin, I-I. .J. and R. \VI. Beatty (1984). Performance Appraisal: Assessing
Human behavior at Work. BOSlOn: Kent Publishing Company; Murphy, K. R.. and J. N.
Cleveland (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal. Social, Organizattonal and GoalBased Perspectioes. Thousand Oaks. CA.: Sage.
Cawley, B. D., L. M. Keeping and P. E. Levy (1998). "Particjpauon in the Performance
Appraisal Process and

Performance Appraisal

95

95
Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Field lnvestigauons,' [ournal cfAppliea

Psychology. volume
83.615-633

Performance Appraisal

96

96
Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Cawley, Keeping and Levy,1998.

7 Latham G. P. and K. N. Wexley (1981).lncreasing Productivity Tbrougb Performance
Appraisal. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley; Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Bernardin & Beatty,
1984; Daley, D. (1992). Performance Appraisal in tbe Public Sector. westport, Connecticut:
Quorum Books
8

Hackman, R. and G. Oldham (1980). \Vork Design. Reading, MA: Addison-wesley

9 Folger, R. (1987). "Distributive and Procedural justlce in the Workplace," Social justice
Research, volume 1,
143-159; Greenberg, j. (1987). "Using Diaries to Promote Procedural Just.ice in
Performance Appraisals,"
Social justice Research, volume 1, 219-234.
10 Folger, 1987.
II Roberts, 1992: Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee Involvement: Methods f01' improving
performance and work attitudes. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publicauons,
12 Dachler, H. P. and B. Wilpon, B. (1978). "Conceptual DImensions and Boundaries of
Participation in
Organizarions: A Critical Analysis," Administrattoe Science Quarterly, volume 23, 139;
Cotton, 1993.
13 Latham and WexJey, 1981.
I~Jordan, J. L. (1990). "Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Supervisors' Traits,"
Psychological Reports, volume 66, 13371338; Daley, 1992; Tjosvold, D. and J. A. Halco
(1992). "Performance Appraisal of Managers: Goal Interdependence, Ratings and
Outcomes,"joumal of Social Psychology, volume 132,629-639.
15 Roberts, 1992; Williams, J. R. and P. E. Levy (1992). "The Effects of Perceived System
Knowledge on the Agreement Between Self-Ratings and Supervisor Ratings," Personnel
Psychology, volume 45, 835-37; Greller, M. M. (1995, June). Participative appraisal reuietas or
participative managers doing reviews? Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Meetings, Organization Behavior Division, Vancouver, BC; Moussavi, Ii'. and D. 1..
Ashbaugh (1995). "Perceptual Effects of Participative, Goal-Oriented Performance Appraisal:
A Field Study in Public Agencies," journal of Publtc Administration Research and Theory,
volume 5, 331-343; Roberts, G. E. (1995). "Developmental Performance Appraisal in
Municipal Government:
An Antldote for a Deadly Disease]," Reuieu) of Public Personnel Administration, volume
15, 17-43.
16 Bernardin and Beatty, 1984.
17 Roberts, G. E. (1996). AA Case Study in Performance Appraisal System Development:
Lessons From a
Municipal Police Depanrnenr," American Reoieu/ of Public Admtnistration, volume 26,
361-385.
18 Roberts. 1992.

Performance Appraisal

97

97
Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

\.9 Roberts, 1992.

20 Roberts, G. E. (1994). "Maximizing Performance Appraisal System Acceptance:
Perspectives From Municipal Government Personnel Administrators," Public Personnel
Management, volume 23, 525-549; Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998.
21 Bernardin and Beatty, 1984.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
2. Nathan, B. R., A. M. Mohrman and j. F. Milliman (1991). "Interpersonal Relauons as a
COntext for the Effects of Appraisal Interviews on Performance and Satisfaction: A
Longitudinal Study," Academy of Management Journal, volume 34, 352-369.
25 Locke, E. A_ and G. P. Latham (1984). Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that \
lorks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenuce-Hall, Moussavi and Ashbaugh, 1995.
26 Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham (1990). "Work Motivation: The High Performance Cycle,"
in U. K1einbeck et al. (Eds.), Work motivation (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn.

Performance Appraisal

98

98
Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

27 Longenecker, C. 0.,]. A. Scazzero and T. T Stansfield (1994). "Quality lrnprovernent

Through Team Goal Serrtng, Feedback and Problem Solving:' Iruernauonatfournal
of
Qualit)' & Reliability Management, volume 11, 4552; Locke and Latham, 1990.
28 Dobbins, G. H.., R. I.. Cardy and S. j. Platz-Vleno (1990). A Contingency Approach to
Appraisal Satisfaction: An Initial Investigation of the Joint Effects of Organizational Variables
and Appraisal Characteristics," Journal of Management, volume 16, 619632; Pooyan, A. and
B. Eberhardt (1989). "Correlates of Performance Appraisal Sausfacuon Among Supervisory
and Nonsupcrvtsory Employees," Journal of Business Research, volume 19, 215-226.
29 Antoni, C. H. and J. Beckmann (1990). ':An Action Control Conceptualization of GoalSetting and Feedback
Effects," In U. Kleinbeck et al. (Eds.), Work motivation (4152). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
so Locke and Latham, 1990.
jl Bernardin and Beatty, 1984.
32 Latham and Wexley, 1981.
33 Locke and Latham, 1990.
3'1 Latham, G. P., T R. Mitchell, T. R. and D.1. Dossett. (1978). "The Importance of
Participative Goal Setting and Anticipated Rewards on Goal Difficulty and job
Performance,"lollrnal
of Applied Psychology, volume
63, 163171.
35 Ilgen, D. R., C. D. Fisher and S. Taylor (1979). "Consequences of Individual Feedback on
Behavior in Organizations," Journal of Applied Psycbology, volume 64, 349371; Ashford S. J.
and l. L. Cummings (1983). Feedback as an Individual Resource: Personal Strategies of Creating
Inforrnauon. Organizational Bebauior and Human Performance, volume 31, 370398.
j6 Longenecker, Scazzero and Stansfield, 1994.
37 Roberts, 1992; Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998.
3B Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Dailey, R. c., and D . .J. Kirk, D. J. (1992). "Distributive and
Procedural Justice as
Antecedents of Job Dissatisfaction and Intent to Turnover," Human Relations, volume 45.
305-317.
39 Carroll and Schneier; Folger, 1987; Harris, M. M. (1994). "Rater Motivation in the
Performance Appraisal
Context: A Theoretical Frdmework,".Ioumal of Management, volume 20,737756.
'II)

Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Roberts, 1995.

II Roberts, 1992.
,2 Popovich, M. G. ed. (1998). Creating bigb .p. erforrnance.gouernment
Francisco: jessey Bass Publishers

Performance Appraisal

99

organizations. San

99
Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

'3 Roberts, G. E. and TReed (1996). "Performance Appraisal Participation, Goal Setting and
Feedback: The
Influence of Supervisory Style," Renieto of Public Personnel Administration, volume 16,
2960.
,.j Coggburn,]. D. (1998). "Subordinate Appraisals of Managers- Lessons From a Slate
Agency," Reuieiu 0/
Public Personnel Admlrustration, volume 18, 6879.

Performance Appraisal

10
0

10
Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Author
Gary E. Roberts
Associate Professor
Division of Public Administration
Universiry of Memphis
431 Clement Hall Memphis, TN 38152 (901) 678-5527
Gary E. Roberts is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at the University of
Memphis specializing in human resource rnanagernent. Dr. Roberts' past work experi ence
includes service in local government public safety research and rural development planning.
His major areas of research interest include organizational work-life benefit practices,
performance measurement and appraisal systems, and MPA curriculum design and evaluation.
Dr. Roberts has published extensively in public administration journals including the
American Review of Public Administration, Review of Pubic Personnel Administration, the
International Journal of Public Administration and Public Personnel Management.

Performance Appraisal

10
1

10
Public Personnel Management Volume 32 No. 1 Spring 2003

Copyright 2003 EBSCO Publishing